Comparing motion capture cameras versus human observer monitoring of mammal movement through fence gaps: a case study from Kenya

Abstract

Monitoring the movement and distribution of wildlife is a critical tool of an adaptive management framework for wildlife conservation. We installed motion-triggered cameras to capture the movement of mammals through two purpose-built migration gaps in an otherwise fenced conservancy in northern Kenya. We compared the results to data gathered over the same time period (1 Jan 2011-31 Dec 2012) by the human observers monitoring mammal tracks left at the same fence gaps in a sandy loam detection strip. The camera traps detected more crossing events, more species and more individuals of each species per crossing event than did the human track observers. We tested for volume detection differences between methods for the five most common species crossing each gap and found that all detection rates were heavily weighted towards the cameratrap method. We review some of the discrepancies between the methods and conclude that although the camera traps record more data, the management of that data can be timeconsuming and ill-suited to some time-sensitive decisionmaking. We also discuss the importance of daily track monitoring for adaptive management conservation and community security.

Identification of Novel Can Manipulation Behaviour in the Common Raven (Corvus corax)

“…Despite their limitations, human observations facilitated the collection of rich and numerous data, with the observers able to change their positions to observe the ravens and the cans to ensure that a wide repertoire of behaviours were identified to remediate for aspects that would not be recorded by camera traps alone [27]. In addition to the issue of missing data using the camera trap technology, this methodology is also vulnerable to damage and theft, as was experienced within this study and has been previously reported by Dupuis-Desormeaux et al [19], who stated that camera traps are vulnerable to theft or destruction by poachers or hunters.…”

“…A study carried out by Wearn et al [18] concluded that when comparing camera trap technology to other methods, generally most studies support camera traps as a highly effective tool for surveying wildlife. Camera trap monitoring captures a larger range of species and behaviours compared to human observers that monitor the same areas [19] and has the potential to reduce observer bias, with camera traps allowing for the verification of behavioural scoring and ensuring the consistency of data recordings, provided that the technology is adequately installed [15]. Nevertheless, this technology has limitations.…”

“…There have been times when animals have passed through but did not trigger the cameras; however, trackers found evidence of this the next day and recorded the data. In addition, there are reports of camera traps being stolen or destroyed, potentially by hunters who are suspicious of their use [19].…”

A System for Monitoring Animals Based on Behavioral Information and Internal State Information

“…However, manual data collection can miss important information and has time constraints. Therefore, systematic and continuous monitoring is important [ 8 ]. In contrast, many monitoring methods using video cameras [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ] and sensors such as thermography [ 13 ], as well as camera-based behavior analysis have been developed with recent improvements in deep neural network technology [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ], making it possible to track animals with high accuracy in a non-contact manner.…”

The Future of Artificial Intelligence in Monitoring Animal Identification, Health, and Behaviour

“…Not only has technology reduced time in conducting research, but it has allowed for more accurate collection compared to that of human observers. For example, when Desormeaux and colleagues [6] compared the information collected from motion triggered cameras located at migratory fence gaps to observers' recordings of mammal tracks (e.g., giraffe, zebra, elephant, and hyaena), a higher volume of crossing was reported with technology, suggesting that human observers may often miss important events. Methodologies that use manual collection of data are often time consuming, time limited, and potentially invasive and/or ill-suited depending on the research focus, supporting further investment in the advancement and refinement of technology-based alternatives.…”