Changing use of camera traps in mammalian field research: habitats, taxa and study types

Camera traps are automated cameras, triggered by movements, used to collect photographic evidence of the presence of animals in field research. I asked whether the use of camera traps in mammalian field research is distributed evenly and increasing equally in a range of habitats, taxa and study types. I aimed to understand where camera traps are used and for what purposes. I identified the population of papers published since 1994 in which camera trap methodology was used. I then explored the population for defined habitats, taxa and study types. I tested the derived data for growth and distribution. Over 96% of the population of camera trap papers identified were focused on mammalian species. Between 1994 and 2011, the use of camera traps for mammalian research increased: 73% of 414 studies were published after 2005. Over time, equipment has become more sophisticated, reliable, flexible, cost-effective and easy to deploy, and there have been other methodological advances. Growth in the number of mammal-related camera trap studies was matched by an expansion in the taxa studied and in study types. The most studied taxon is the order Carnivora; forests are the most studied habitat. No single study type dominates, although there are more population density studies than any other. Camera trap studies are focused on a limited number of habitats and taxa due to their particular strengths and the characteristics of the species that they are used to investigate. Developments such as infrared illumination and triggering, greater battery life, improved lenses, digital storage capacity, miniaturization, video and real-time links will enable camera traps to be used for an increasing range of habitats, taxa and study types and will reinforce their growing value in the areas in which they currently predominate.

[1]  Janet F Grant,et al.  Photographic identification of ground-nest predators in Australian tropical rainforest , 1994 .

[2]  N. Pettorelli,et al.  Carnivore biodiversity in Tanzania: revealing the distribution patterns of secretive mammals using camera traps , 2010 .

[3]  L. Silveira,et al.  Camera trap, line transect census and track surveys: a comparative evaluation , 2003 .

[4]  R. Mittermeier,et al.  Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities , 2000, Nature.

[5]  M. D. Di Bitetti,et al.  Differential Responses to Hunting in Two Sympatric Species of Brocket Deer (Mazama americana and M. nana) , 2008 .

[6]  Douglas H. Johnson,et al.  Sampling designs for carnivore scent-station surveys , 2003 .

[7]  K. U. Karanth,et al.  A tiger cannot change its stripes: using a three-dimensional model to match images of living tigers and tiger skins , 2009, Biology Letters.

[8]  Pierre-Cyril Renaud,et al.  Cost and Efficiency of Large Mammal Census Techniques: Comparison of Methods for a Participatory Approach in a Communal Area, Zimbabwe , 2006, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[9]  Michael Stevens,et al.  A comparison of the effectiveness of camera trapping and live trapping for sampling terrestrial small-mammal communities , 2010 .

[10]  David L. Wetzel,et al.  A web-based digital camera for monitoring remote wildlife , 2005 .

[11]  T. Cutler Using remote photography in wildlife ecology : a review , 1999 .

[12]  J. Nichols,et al.  ESTIMATING SITE OCCUPANCY, COLONIZATION, AND LOCAL EXTINCTION WHEN A SPECIES IS DETECTED IMPERFECTLY , 2003 .

[13]  A. Plumptre,et al.  Camera-trapping forest–woodland wildlife of western Uganda reveals how gregariousness biases estimates of relative abundance and distribution , 2010 .

[14]  Christopher J. Kyle,et al.  Empirical comparison of density estimators for large carnivores , 2010 .

[15]  Qamar Qureshi,et al.  Evaluating capture–recapture population and density estimation of tigers in a population with known parameters , 2010 .

[16]  Andrew S. Bridges,et al.  Seasonal Variation in American Black Bear Ursus americanus Activity Patterns: Quantification Via Remote Photography , 2004, Wildlife Biology.

[17]  J. Andrew Royle,et al.  Density Estimation in a Wolverine Population using Spatial Capture-Recapture Models , 2011 .

[18]  Crowther,et al.  Comparison of methods to detect rare and cryptic species: A case study using the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) , 2009 .

[19]  Ana Carolina Srbek-Araujo,et al.  Armadilhas fotográficas na amostragem de mamíferos: considerações metodológias e comparação de equipamentos , 2007 .

[20]  Robert K. Colwell,et al.  Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. , 1994, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[21]  Masatoshi Yasuda,et al.  New method of monitoring remote wildlife via the Internet , 2002, Ecological Research.

[22]  T. O'Brien Wildlife picture index and biodiversity monitoring: issues and future directions , 2010 .

[23]  Marcella J. Kelly,et al.  Design, evaluate, refine: camera trap studies for elusive species , 2008 .

[24]  M. Tobler,et al.  An evaluation of camera traps for inventorying large‐ and medium‐sized terrestrial rainforest mammals , 2008 .

[25]  Grant Harris,et al.  Automatic Storage and Analysis of Camera Trap Data , 2010 .

[26]  Rebecca J. Foster,et al.  Heterogeneous capture rates in low density populations and consequences for capture-recapture analysis of camera-trap data , 2010, Population Ecology.

[27]  M. J. Saxon,et al.  Use of infrared digital cameras to investigate the behaviour of cryptic species , 2004 .

[28]  J Andrew Royle,et al.  Bayesian inference in camera trapping studies for a class of spatial capture-recapture models. , 2009, Ecology.

[29]  Andrew J. Noss,et al.  Temporal separation between jaguar and puma in the dry forests of southern Bolivia , 2010, Journal of Tropical Ecology.

[30]  J. Savidge,et al.  An Infrared Trigger and Camera to Identify Predators at Artificial Nests , 1988 .

[31]  J. Andrew Royle,et al.  ESTIMATING POPULATION TRENDS WITH A LINEAR MODEL: TECHNICAL COMMENTS , 2004 .

[32]  J. Nichols,et al.  ESTIMATION OF TIGER DENSITIES IN INDIA USING PHOTOGRAPHIC CAPTURES AND RECAPTURES , 1998 .

[33]  Marcella J. Kelly,et al.  Ocelot Leopardus pardalis in Belize: the impact of trap spacing and distance moved on density estimates , 2007, Oryx.

[34]  O. Monroy-Vilchis,et al.  Diversidad de mamíferos de la Reserva Natural Sierra Nanchititla, México , 2011 .

[35]  Per Wegge,et al.  Effects of trapping effort and trap shyness on estimates of tiger abundance from camera trap studies , 2004 .

[36]  Luiz Gustavo R. Oliveira-Santos,et al.  Is it possible to individually identify mammals with no natural markings using camera-traps?A controlled case-study with lowland tapirs , 2010 .

[37]  T. Fuller,et al.  Opportunistic use of camera traps to assess habitat-specific mammal and bird diversity in northcentral Namibia , 2008, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[38]  Samuel T. Turvey,et al.  Estimating animal density using camera traps without the need for individual recognition , 2008 .

[39]  Darryl I. MacKenzie,et al.  The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals: a comment on misleading conclusions , 2002 .

[40]  J. Estes,et al.  Strongly Interacting Species: Conservation Policy, Management, and Ethics , 2005 .

[41]  V. Pivello,et al.  Comparing methods for sampling large- and medium-sized mammals: camera traps and track plots , 2008, European Journal of Wildlife Research.

[42]  Julia P. G. Jones Monitoring species abundance and distribution at the landscape scale , 2011 .

[43]  David L. Smith,et al.  The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals , 2001, Animal Conservation.

[44]  R. Jeo,et al.  Remote camera-trap methods and analyses reveal impacts of rangeland management on Namibian carnivore communities , 2007, Oryx.