Pangolins in global camera trap data: Implications for ecological monitoring

Khwaja, Hannah; Buchan, Claire; Wearn, Oliver R.; Bahaa‐el‐din, Laila; Bantlin, Drew; Bernard, Henry; Bitariho, Robert; Bohm, Torsten; Borah, Jimmy; Brodie, Jedediah F.; Chutipong, Wanlop; Preez, Byron du; Ebang-Mbele, Alex; Edwards, Sarah; Fairet, Emilie; Frechette, Jackson L.; Garside, Adrian; Gibson, Luke; Giordano, Anthony J.; Gopi, Govindan Veeraswami; Granados, Alys; Gubbi, Sanjay; Harich, Franziska K.; Haurez, Barbara; Havmøller, Rasmus Worsøe; Helmy, Olga E.; Isbell, Lynne A.; Jenks, Kate E.; Kalle, Riddhika; Kamjing, Anucha; Khamcha, Daphawan; Kiebou-Opepa, Cisquet; Kinnaird, Margaret F.; Kruger, Caroline; Laudisoit, Anne; Lynam, Antony J.; MacDonald, Suzanne E.; Mathai, John; Sienne, Julia Metsio; Meier, Amelia; Mills, David; Mohd‐Azlan, Jayasilan; Nakashima, Yoshihiro; Nash, Helen C.; Ngoprasert, Dusit; Nguyen, An; O’Brien, Timothy J.; Olson, David M.; Orbell, Christopher; Poulsen, J.; Ramesh, Tharmalingam; Reeder, DeeAnn M.; Reyna, Rafael; Rich, Lindsey N.; Rode‐Margono, Johanna; Rovero, Francesco; Sheil, Douglas; Shirley, Matthew H.; Stratford, Ken; Sukumal, Niti; Suwanrat, Saranphat; Tantipisanuh, Naruemon; Tilker, Andrew; Berkel, Tim van; Weyde, Leanne K. Van der; Varney, Matthew; Weise, Florian J.; Wiesel, Ingrid; Wilting, Andreas; Wong, Seth T.; Waterman, Carly; Challender, Daniel W.S.

doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00769

Cited by 40 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…random, standard-grid and arboreal placement) with a LEK-informed survey design at the same place, as well as investigating pangolin preference for particular tree species. We note that while the evidence we present here is not from a systematic methods comparison, our results are promising, considering the low number of pangolin detections acquired during 18 studies using 2,287 camera traps across different sampling regions and sites across the species' range (Khwaja et al, 2019…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…Pangolins are generally solitary, nocturnal and hide when not active, thus making detection through surveys challenging (Khwaja et al., 2019; Willcox et al., 2019). Informed by LEK from hunting communities, we aimed camera traps on several types of possible pangolin activity sites identified by local guides.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Records of pangolin from camera traps are often from occasional events (Bruce et al., 2018). For example, across 18 camera‐trap surveys in the predicted range of white‐bellied pangolins, 2,287 camera traps produced 275 five‐day trap occasions with detections of this species (Khwaja et al., 2019). Whilst the survey effort required to detect pangolins with camera traps can be high and detections rates of pangolins generally low, adapting camera‐trap survey approaches to pangolin habitat preferences and behaviours may improve their efficacy (Khwaja et al., 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Using local ecological knowledge to improve the effectiveness of detecting white‐bellied pangolins (Phataginus tricuspis) using camera traps: A case study from Deng‐Deng National Park, Cameroon

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using local ecological knowledge to improve the effectiveness of detecting white‐bellied pangolins (Phataginus tricuspis) using camera traps: A case study from Deng‐Deng National Park, Cameroon

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Further, the government of Nepal desires to understand the effectiveness of their protected areas in maintaining viable wildlife populations (DNPWC & DoF, 2018). A challenge to addressing these needs is that the occurrences of pangolin species in Nepal are not well documented due to their low abundance and nocturnal behavior (Bruce et al, 2017; Khwaja et al, 2019). Therefore, documenting Chinese pangolin occurrence through identification of sign, such as burrows (Katuwal, Sharma, & Parajuli, 2017; Thapa, Khatiwada, Nepal, & Paudel, 2014), could be beneficial for long‐term monitoring of pangolin species.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating occupancy of Chinese pangolin (Manis pentadactyla) in a protected and non‐protected area of Nepal

Sharma¹,

Sharma

Chaulagain

et al. 2020

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chinese pangolin is the world's most heavily trafficked small mammal for luxury food and traditional medicine. Although their populations are declining worldwide, it is difficult to monitor their population status because of its rarity and nocturnal behavior. We used site occupancy (presence/absence) sampling of pangolin sign (i.e., active burrows) in a protected (Gaurishankar Conservation Area) and non‐protected area (Ramechhap District) of central Nepal with multiple environmental covariates to understand factors that may influence occupancy of Chinese pangolin. The average Chinese pangolin occupancy and detection probabilities were trueΨ^ ± SE = 0.77 ± 0.08; truep^ ± SE = 0.27 ± 0.05, respectively. The detection probabilities of Chinese pangolin were higher in PA ( truep^ ± SE = 0.33 ± 0.03) than compared to non‐PA ( truep^ ± SE = 0.25 ± 0.04). The most important covariates for Chinese pangolin detectability were red soil (97%), food source (97.6%), distance to road (97.9%), and protected area (97%) and with respect to occupancy was elevation (97.9%). We recommended use of remote cameras and potentially GPS collar surveys to further investigate habitat use and site occupancy at regular intervals to provide more reliable conservation assessments.

show abstract

“…While many CT studies focus specifically on multiple species [7], or make use of "bycatch" of non-target species (e.g. [33,34]), the variable effects of the use of attractants like scent lure are rarely considered. This may introduce unknown bias into inferences across multiple species from CT surveys using attractants, or in comparisons between surveys that differed in their attractant use.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of scent lure on camera trap detections vary across mammalian predator and prey species

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Camera traps are a unique survey tool used to monitor a wide variety of mammal species. Camera trap (CT) data can be used to estimate animal distribution, density, and behaviour. Attractants, such as scent lures, are often used in an effort to increase CT detections; however, the degree which the effects of attractants vary across species is not well understood. We investigated the effects of scent lure on mammal detections by comparing detection rates between 404 lured and 440 unlured CT stations sampled in Alberta, Canada over 120 day survey periods between February and August in 2015 and 2016. We used zero-inflated negative binomial generalized linear mixed models to test the effect of lure on detection rates for a) all mammals, b) six functional groups (all predator species, all prey, large carnivores, small carnivores, small mammals, ungulates), and c) four varied species of management interest (fisher, Pekania pennanti; gray wolf, Canis lupus; moose, Alces alces; and Richardson's ground squirrel; Urocitellus richardsonii). Mammals were detected at 800 of the 844 CTs, with nearly equal numbers of total detections at CTs with (7110) and without (7530) lure, and variable effects of lure on groups and individual species. Scent lure significantly increased detections of predators as a group, including large and small carnivore subgroups and fisher specifically, but not of gray wolf. There was no effect of scent lure on detections of prey species, including the small mammal and ungulate subgroups and moose and Richardson's ground squirrel specifically. We recommend that researchers explicitly consider the variable effects of scent lure on CT detections across species when designing, interpreting, or comparing multi-species surveys. Additional research is needed to further quantify variation in species responses to scent lures and other attractants, and to elucidate the effect of attractants on community-level inferences from camera trap surveys.

show abstract

Pangolins in global camera trap data: Implications for ecological monitoring

Cited by 40 publications

References 29 publications

Using local ecological knowledge to improve the effectiveness of detecting white‐bellied pangolins (Phataginus tricuspis) using camera traps: A case study from Deng‐Deng National Park, Cameroon

Using local ecological knowledge to improve the effectiveness of detecting white‐bellied pangolins (Phataginus tricuspis) using camera traps: A case study from Deng‐Deng National Park, Cameroon

Estimating occupancy of Chinese pangolin (Manis pentadactyla) in a protected and non‐protected area of Nepal

Effects of scent lure on camera trap detections vary across mammalian predator and prey species

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About