A portable low‐cost remote videography system for monitoring wildlife

Summary 1. Remote videography allows continuous and reviewable recording of unique behaviours with minimal disturbance to focus individuals. It is therefore an excellent, although often unaffordable, method for observing the behaviour of wildlife in the field. 2. We describe a digital video-based remote videography design that costs under USD 900 and requires relatively minimal maintenance. The system is portable and can record continuously or when motion is detected. 3. Using the threatened New Zealand falcon as a model, in a single season of camera deployment we were able to record a number of unique events, including a new prey species for the falcon and the complete depredation of one nest. 4. Only 16% of potential recording hours were lost, the majority of which were as a result of battery failure (52% of failures) or the camera becoming dislodged (33% of failures). 5. This system will be useful for researchers in all fields who require a reliable, cost-effective means of recording wildlife behaviour in remote locations.

[1]  J. Meyers,et al.  A simple, inexpensive video camera setup for the study of avian nest activity , 2005 .

[2]  P. Georgiakakis,et al.  An audio–visual nest monitoring system for the study and manipulation of siblicide in bearded vultures Gypaetus barbatus on the island of Crete (Greece) , 2008, Journal of Ethology.

[3]  Stephen D. Wratten,et al.  Video Techniques in Animal Ecology and Behaviour , 1993, Springer Netherlands.

[4]  Andrew J. Pierce,et al.  A portable system for continuous monitoring of bird nests using digital video recorders , 2007 .

[5]  Y. Manetas,et al.  Enhanced UV-B radiation, flower attributes and pollinator behaviour in Cistus creticus: a Mediterranean field study , 2000, Plant Ecology.

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

[7]  W. Watson,et al.  Lobster trap video: in situ video surveillance of the behaviour of Homarus americanus in and around traps , 2001 .

[8]  R. Hunt,et al.  Selected Aspects of the Nesting Ecology of American Alligators in the Okefenokee Swamp , 1991 .

[9]  C. Nielsen,et al.  A Remote Videography System for Monitoring Beavers , 2009 .

[10]  Vitali Reif,et al.  Using time-lapse digital video recording for a nesting study of birds of prey , 2006, European Journal of Wildlife Research.

[11]  J. Innes,et al.  Identifying predators at nests of small birds in a New Zealand forest , 2008 .

[12]  S. Atkinson,et al.  INTERSEASONAL AND INTERANNUAL MEASURES OF MATERNAL CARE AMONG INDIVIDUAL STELLER SEA LIONS (EUMETOPIAS JUBATUS) , 2006 .

[13]  J. Rappole,et al.  Predation on artificial nests in large forest blocks , 1994 .

[14]  F. Suárez,et al.  Does photo-monitoring affect nest predation? , 2002 .

[15]  Mark R. Fuller,et al.  A comparison of 3 methods for assessing raptor diet during the breeding season , 2004 .

[16]  Travis L. Booms,et al.  Time-lapse video system used to study nesting Gyrfalcons , 2003 .

[17]  S. H. Jenkins,et al.  Review and Meta-Analysis of Camera Effects on Avian Nest Success , 2009 .

[18]  C. Boal,et al.  Northern Goshawk diet in Minnesota: An Analysis using video recording systems , 2005 .

[19]  P. Pietz,et al.  Identifying predators and fates of grassland passerine nests using miniature video cameras , 2000 .

[20]  M. Sanders,et al.  Causes of mortality at nests of ground-nesting birds in the Upper Waitaki Basin, South Island, New Zealand: a 5-year video study , 2002 .

[21]  H. Moller,et al.  Indices of density of feral goats in a grassland/forest habitat, Marlborough, New Zealand. , 1993 .

[22]  Jonathan Wright,et al.  A critical analysis of ‘false-feeding’ behavior in a cooperatively breeding bird: disturbance effects, satiated nestlings or deception? , 2007, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[23]  A. Cockburn,et al.  Sex allocation and nestling survival in a dimorphic raptor: does size matter? , 2005 .