Evaluation of three remote camera systems for detecting mammals and birds

Dixon, Victoria; Glover, Hayley K.; Winnell, Jodie; Treloar, Shannon; Whisson, Desley A.; Weston, Michael A.

doi:10.1111/j.1442-8903.2009.00479.x

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, studies performing specific analyses to evaluate possible effects of the camera over individuals’ behavior are scarce. Although scarce, results seems to consistently show no negative effects, similar to our own findings; for example, beavers ( Castor canadensis ) did not show significant interactions with cameras and did not leave monitored warrens [ 35 ] and red foxes ( Vulpes vulpes ) showed a fast adaptation to the presence of cameras after initial negative effects in their behavior [ 37 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Sources of Variation in a Two-Step Monitoring Protocol for Species Clustered in Conspicuous Points: Dolichotis patagonum as a Case Study

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In species showing distributions attached to particular features of the landscape or conspicuous signs, counts are commonly made by making focal observations where animals concentrate. However, to obtain density estimates for a given area, independent searching for signs and occupancy rates of suitable sites is needed. In both cases, it is important to estimate detection probability and other possible sources of variation to avoid confounding effects on measurements of abundance variation. Our objective was to assess possible bias and sources of variation in a two-step protocol in which random designs were applied to search for signs while continuously recording video cameras were used to perform abundance counts where animals are concentrated, using mara (Dolichotis patagonum) as a case study. The protocol was successfully applied to maras within the Península Valdés protected area, given that the protocol was logistically suitable, allowed warrens to be found, the associated adults to be counted, and the detection probability to be estimated. Variability was documented in both components of the two-step protocol. These sources of variation should be taken into account when applying this protocol. Warren detectability was approximately 80% with little variation. Factors related to false positive detection were more important than imperfect detection. The detectability for individuals was approximately 90% using the entire day of observations. The shortest sampling period with a similar detection capacity than a day was approximately 10 hours, and during this period, the visiting dynamic did not show trends. For individual mara, the detection capacity of the camera was not significantly different from the observer during fieldwork. The presence of the camera did not affect the visiting behavior of adults to the warren. Application of this protocol will allow monitoring of the near-threatened mara providing a minimum local population size and a baseline for measuring long-term trends.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Sources of Variation in a Two-Step Monitoring Protocol for Species Clustered in Conspicuous Points: Dolichotis patagonum as a Case Study

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dixon et al. () compared video and passive vs. active camera systems and reported a higher sensitivity of the passive infrared systems. Urlus, McCutcheon, Gilmore, and McMahon () also showed that different camera models had different rates of positive triggers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distance and size matters: A comparison of six wildlife camera traps and their usefulness for wild birds

Randler

Kalb

2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Camera traps are increasingly used in ecological research. However, tests of their performance are scarce. It is already known from previous work that camera traps frequently fail to capture visits by animals. This can lead to a misinterpretation of ecological results such as density estimates or predation events. While previous work is mainly based on mammals, for birds, no data about if and how camera traps can be successfully used to estimate species diversity or density are available. Hence, the goal of our study was an empirical validation of six different camera traps in the field. We observed a total number of N = 4567 events (independent visits of a bird) in 100 different sessions from March 2017 until January 2018 while camera traps were deployed. In addition, N = 641 events are based on a comparison of the two close‐up camera traps especially designed for birds. These events were all directly observed by the authors. Thus, the cameras can be compared against the human observer. To give an overall assessment and a more generalizable result, we combined the data from the six camera traps and showed that bird size category (effect size = 0.207) and distance (effect size = 0.132) are the most important predictors for a successful trigger. Also, temperature had a small effect, and flock size had an impact with larger flocks being captured more often. The approach of the bird, whether it approached the camera frontally or laterally had no influence. In Table 8, we give some recommendations, based on our results, at which distances camera traps should be placed to get a 25%, 50%, and 75% capture rate for a given bird size.

show abstract

“…Cameras (Scout Guard KG680V motion sensor surveillance, day/night cameras) were placed in participants' gardens to record the species using supplementary food or water, between early July 2013 and mid-August 2013 (see Dixon et al 2009). The homes included in the study represented a mix of suburban housing and larger bushland properties.…”

Section: Camera Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

Feeding wild birds in gardens: A test of water versus food

Miller

Blaszczynski

Weston

2015

Eco Management Restoration

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bird feeding in residential gardens is an increasingly popular human-wildlife interaction. In Australia, the practice is discouraged by most government and nongovernment wildlife conservation agencies, although advice varies and the most common recommendation is to provide water and habitat for birds rather than supplementary food. This study compares bird abundance and diversity when residents in a Melbourne municipality provide water for birds versus food. Bird abundance was greater when food was provided compared with water, but avian assemblages did not differ.

show abstract

Evaluation of three remote camera systems for detecting mammals and birds

Cited by 14 publications

References 8 publications

Sources of Variation in a Two-Step Monitoring Protocol for Species Clustered in Conspicuous Points: Dolichotis patagonum as a Case Study

Sources of Variation in a Two-Step Monitoring Protocol for Species Clustered in Conspicuous Points: Dolichotis patagonum as a Case Study

Distance and size matters: A comparison of six wildlife camera traps and their usefulness for wild birds

Feeding wild birds in gardens: A test of water versus food

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About