Limitations to recording larger mammalian predators in savannah using camera traps and spoor

Abstract

Traditionally, spoor (tracks, pug marks) have been used as a cost effective tool to assess the presence and in some cases the individual identity of larger mammals. Automated camera traps are now increasingly utilised to monitor wildlife, primarily as the cost has greatly declined and statistical approaches to data analysis have improved. While camera traps have become ubiquitous, we have little understanding of their effectiveness when compared to traditional approaches using spoor in the field. Here, we 1) test the success of camera traps in recording a range of carnivore species against spoor in realistic field settings (dirt roads in a South African wilderness reserve); 2) ask if simple measures of spoor size taken by amateur volunteers are likely to allow individual leopards to be tracked in the field and 3) for a trained tracker, ask if this approach may allow individual leopards to be followed with confidence in savannah habitat. We found that camera traps under‐recorded mammalian top and meso‐carnivores when compared with spoor in the field, with camera traps more likely to underrecord the presence of smaller carnivores (civet 64%; genet 46%, Meller's mongoose 45%) than larger (jackal sp. 30%, brown hyena 22%), while leopard was more likely to be recorded by camera trap (all recorded by camera trap only). We found that amateur trackers could be beneficial in regards to recording leopard presence; however the large variance in measurements of spoor taken by volunteers suggests that this approach is unlikely to allow the collection of further information about individual leopards. Nevertheless, the use of simple spoor measurements in the field by a trained field researcher increases their ability to reliably follow a leopard trail in difficult terrain. This allows researchers to glean further data on leopard behaviour and habitat use without the need for complex spoor analysis.

Impacts of human recreation on carnivores in protected areas

“…Roads, a feature common to most PAs and a well-studied aspect of human disturbance, had varying levels of impact on carnivores. Roads positively affected occupancy of coyotes, likely a result of some carnivore’s tendency to use roads for travel [ 55 , 56 ]. Conversely, most of the rare carnivore species as well as gray foxes had a negative association with roads, a result found in other studies as well [ 57 – 59 ].…”

The challenge of monitoring elusive large carnivores: An accurate and cost-effective tool to identify and sex pumas (Puma concolor) from footprints

“…Despite the challenges, agencies responsible for managing pumas are often tasked with estimating their populations [ 2 ]. The need for reliable data on puma populations has led to the development of a range of research approaches including: capture-recapture [ 3 , 4 ], extrapolation of hunter harvest data [ 2 ], comparison of harvest and demographic data [ 5 ], camera trap surveys [ 6 , 7 ], aerial snow trail counts [ 8 ], and several variations of track surveys [ 9 – 11 ]. However, there are shortcomings with each of these methods that prevent wide-scale adoption.…”

Increasing game prices may alter farmers’ behaviours towards leopards (Panthera pardus) and other carnivores in South Africa

“…Thaba Tholo holds good populations of large carnivores, including leopard (Pirie, Thomas & Fellowes, 2016a; Pirie, Thomas & Fellowes, 2016b). This area included the towns and regions of Steelport, Burgersfort, Lydenburg and Ohrigstad in Limpopo and Mpumalanga provinces, South Africa (Fig.…”