Abstract
White flash camera-traps are avoided in predator monitoring as they are assumed to lower redetection, despite infrared cameras producing lower-quality night images thus limiting the scope for individual identification and, consequently, the accuracy of density estimates. We sought to determine whether flash type impacts the behaviour of cats (Felis catus). We identified different behavioural responses exhibited by photographed cats, and quantitatively assessed relative activity, redetection rates, and the activity of specific individuals using 11,389 images of feral cats from 62 white flash and 62 infrared camera-traps across Tasmania. We found no difference in the relative activity of cats between flash types (odds ratio of 0.90, [null expectation = 1], CI = 0.55, 1.47), and there was no evidence of a reduction in redetection rate of feral cats following initial detection (odds ratio = 0.83, CI = 0.47, 1.46). The activity of individuals was similar between white flash (average = 0.026, CI = 0.021, 0.032), and infrared cameras (average = 0.028, CI = 0.022, 0.035). White flash cameras appear suitable for monitoring feral cats without resulting in a negative bias, highlighting the need for researchers to critically examine assumptions regarding best methodology.
Funder
Australian Research Council
Reference32 articles.
1. Ballard G, Meek PD, Doak S, Fleming PJ, Sparkes J (2014) Camera traps, sand plots and known events: what do camera traps miss. In ‘Camera trapping: wildlife management and research’. (Ed. PD Meek, PJS Fleming) 189–202. (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia)
2. Bates D (2016) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R Package Version 1. p. 1.
3. Estimating and indexing feral cat population abundances using camera traps.;Wildlife Research,2011
4. Identification of threatened rodent species using infrared and white-flash camera traps.;Australian Mammalogy,2018
5. Canty A, Ripley B (2017) boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) functions. R Package Version 1. pp. 3–20.