Comparison of methods to detect rare and cryptic species: a case study using the red fox (Vulpes vulpes)

Abstract

Choosing the appropriate method to detect and monitor wildlife species is difficult if the species is rare or cryptic in appearance or behaviour. We evaluated the effectiveness of the following four methods for detecting red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) on the basis of equivalent person hours in a rural landscape in temperate Australia: camera traps, hair traps (using morphology and DNA from hair follicles), scats from bait stations (using DNA derived from the scats) and spotlighting. We also evaluated whether individual foxes could be identified using remote collection of their tissues. Genetic analysis of hair samples was the least efficient method of detection among the methods employed because of the paucity of samples obtained and the lack of follicles on sampled hairs. Scat detection was somewhat more efficient. Scats were deposited at 17% of bait stations and 80% of scats were amplified with a fox-specific marker, although only 31% of confirmed fox scats could be fully genotyped at all six microsatellite loci. Camera trapping and spotlighting were the most efficient methods of detecting fox presence in the landscape. Spotlighting success varied seasonally, with fox detections peaking in autumn (80% of spotlighting transects) and being lowest in winter (29% of transects). Cameras detected foxes at 51% of stations; however, there was limited seasonality in detection, and success rates varied with camera design. Log-linear models confirmed these trends. Our results showed that the appropriate technique for detecting foxes varies depending on the time of the year. It is suggested that wildlife managers should consider both seasonal effects and species biology when attempting to detect rare or elusive species.

Wild boars’ social structure in the Mediterranean habitat

“…Wild boars are notoriously difficult to observe because of their mainly nocturnal habits and their preference for environments that are difficult for humans to reach, such as wooded spots (Boitani et al 1994;Russo et al 1997;Fattebert 2005). However, the cameratrapping method allows researchers to overcome this problem and has been shown to be suitable for monitoring rare or elusive species (Winarni et al 2004;Larrucea et al 2007;Vine et al 2009), as well for assessing population structure and sex and age ratios (Plhal et al 2011).…”

“…The survey of wild boar groups was performed using 20 camera traps (Ziboni IDS MULTI PRO-12 Mpx) (see Hebeisen et al 2008;Vine et al 2009). Camera traps were set in modality video, length 1 min, refractory period of 1 sec, resolution 12 Mpx, video size 640 × 480 pixel per frame.…”

Developing a Monitoring Programme for Mammals in Himalayan Protected Areas: A case study from Khangchendzonga National Park and Biosphere Reserve, Sikkim, India

“…Reliable information on the locations of animals is often difficult to acquire, either because they are rare or elusive (Buckland et al, 2000(Buckland et al, , 2005Gu & Swihart, 2004;Vine et al, 2009;Paull et al, 2012). This scenario is a severe hindrance to conservation planning.…”

Population estimation methods, home range and habitat use for wild red deer (Cervus elaphus) at Cressbrook Dam, south-eastern Queensland

“…Remote cameras have been utilised successfully in a number of wildlife studies around the world on a variety of species Jacobson et al 1997;Koerth et al 1997;Larrucea et al 2007;Marker et al 2008;Rowcliffe et al 2008;Vine et al 2009;Winarni et al 2004). White-tailed deer appear to be the main deer species studied using this method (Jacobson et al 1997;Koerth et al 1997;).…”

“…Cameras may also provide more information than other methods where the animal is shy or cryptic in behaviour (Larrucea et al 2007;Vine et al 2009;Winarni et al 2004).…”