A simple framework for maximizing camera trap detections using experimental trials
-
Published:2023-10-27
Issue:11
Volume:195
Page:
-
ISSN:0167-6369
-
Container-title:Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Environ Monit Assess
Author:
DeWitt Philip D.ORCID, Cocksedge Amy G.
Abstract
AbstractCamera trap data are biased when an animal passes through a camera’s field of view but is not recorded. Cameras that operate using passive infrared sensors rely on their ability to detect thermal energy from the surface of an object. Optimal camera deployment consequently depends on the relationship between a sensor array and an animal. Here, we describe a general, experimental approach to evaluate detection errors that arise from the interaction between cameras and animals. We adapted distance sampling models and estimated the combined effects of distance, camera model, lens height, and vertical angle on the probability of detecting three different body sizes representing mammals that inhabit temperate, boreal, and arctic ecosystems. Detection probabilities were best explained by a half-normal-logistic mixture and were influenced by all experimental covariates. Detection monotonically declined when proxies were ≥6 m from the camera; however, models show that body size and camera model mediated the effect of distance on detection. Although not a focus of our study, we found that unmodeled heterogeneity arising from solar position has the potential to bias inferences where animal movements vary over time. Understanding heterogeneous detection probabilities is valuable when designing and analyzing camera trap studies. We provide a general experimental and analytical framework that ecologists, citizen scientists, and others can use and adapt to optimize camera protocols for various wildlife species and communities. Applying our framework can help ecologists assess trade-offs that arise from interactions among distance, cameras, and body sizes before committing resources to field data collection.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Pollution,General Environmental Science,General Medicine
Reference42 articles.
1. Alberta Biodiversity and Monitoring Institute [ABMI]. (2021). Terrestrial ABMI Autonomous Recording Unit (ARU) and Remote Camera Trap Protocols. Version 2021-04-21. https://ftp-public.abmi.ca/home/publications/documents/599_ABMI_2021_TerrestrialARUandRemoteCameraTrapProtocols_ABMI.pdf. Accessed July 2023 2. Apps, P., & McNutt, J. W. (2018). Are camera traps fit for purpose? A rigorous, reproducible and realistic test of camera trap performance. African Journal of Ecology, 56(4), 710–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12573 3. Becker, M., Huggard, D. J., Dickie, M., Warbington, C., Schieck, J., Herdman, E., Serrouya, R., & Boutin, S. (2022). Applying and testing a novel method to estimate animal density from motion-triggered cameras. Ecosphere, 13(4), e4005. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4005 4. Bolker B., & R Development Core Team. (2022). bbmle: Tools for general maximum likelihood estimation. v1.0.25. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=bbmle. 5. Burton, A. C., Neilson, E., Moreira, D., Ladle, A., Steenweg, R., Fisher, J. T., Bayne, E., & Boutin, S. (2015). Wildlife camera trapping: A review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52(3), 675–685. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12432
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|