Cargando…
Estimating effective survey duration in camera trap distance sampling surveys
Among other approaches, camera trap distance sampling (CTDS) is used to estimate animal abundance from unmarked populations. It was formulated for videos and observation distances are measured at predetermined ‘snapshot moments’. Surveys recording still images with passive infrared motion sensors su...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10571013/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37841220 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.10599 |
_version_ | 1785119889995857920 |
---|---|
author | Kühl, Hjalmar S. Buckland, Stephen T. Henrich, Maik Howe, Eric Heurich, Marco |
author_facet | Kühl, Hjalmar S. Buckland, Stephen T. Henrich, Maik Howe, Eric Heurich, Marco |
author_sort | Kühl, Hjalmar S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Among other approaches, camera trap distance sampling (CTDS) is used to estimate animal abundance from unmarked populations. It was formulated for videos and observation distances are measured at predetermined ‘snapshot moments’. Surveys recording still images with passive infrared motion sensors suffer from frequent periods where animals are not photographed, either because of technical delays before the camera can be triggered again (i.e. ‘camera recovery time’) or because they remain stationary and do not immediately retrigger the camera following camera recovery time (i.e. ‘retrigger delays’). These effects need to be considered when calculating temporal survey effort to avoid downwardly biased abundance estimates. Here, we extend the CTDS model for passive infrared motion sensor recording of single images or short photo series. We propose estimating ‘mean time intervals between triggers’ as combined mean camera recovery time and mean retrigger delays from the time interval distribution of pairs of consecutive pictures, using a Gamma and Exponential function, respectively. We apply the approach to survey data on red deer, roe deer and wild boar. Mean time intervals between triggers were very similar when estimated empirically and when derived from the model‐based approach. Depending on truncation times (i.e. the time interval between consecutive pictures beyond which data are discarded) and species, we estimated mean time intervals between retriggers between 8.28 and 15.05 s. Using a predefined snapshot interval, not accounting for these intervals, would lead to underestimated density by up to 96% due to overestimated temporal survey effort. The proposed approach is applicable to any taxa surveyed with camera traps. As programming of cameras to record still images is often preferred over video recording due to reduced consumption of energy and memory, we expect this approach to find broad application, also for other camera trap methods than CTDS. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10571013 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105710132023-10-14 Estimating effective survey duration in camera trap distance sampling surveys Kühl, Hjalmar S. Buckland, Stephen T. Henrich, Maik Howe, Eric Heurich, Marco Ecol Evol Research Articles Among other approaches, camera trap distance sampling (CTDS) is used to estimate animal abundance from unmarked populations. It was formulated for videos and observation distances are measured at predetermined ‘snapshot moments’. Surveys recording still images with passive infrared motion sensors suffer from frequent periods where animals are not photographed, either because of technical delays before the camera can be triggered again (i.e. ‘camera recovery time’) or because they remain stationary and do not immediately retrigger the camera following camera recovery time (i.e. ‘retrigger delays’). These effects need to be considered when calculating temporal survey effort to avoid downwardly biased abundance estimates. Here, we extend the CTDS model for passive infrared motion sensor recording of single images or short photo series. We propose estimating ‘mean time intervals between triggers’ as combined mean camera recovery time and mean retrigger delays from the time interval distribution of pairs of consecutive pictures, using a Gamma and Exponential function, respectively. We apply the approach to survey data on red deer, roe deer and wild boar. Mean time intervals between triggers were very similar when estimated empirically and when derived from the model‐based approach. Depending on truncation times (i.e. the time interval between consecutive pictures beyond which data are discarded) and species, we estimated mean time intervals between retriggers between 8.28 and 15.05 s. Using a predefined snapshot interval, not accounting for these intervals, would lead to underestimated density by up to 96% due to overestimated temporal survey effort. The proposed approach is applicable to any taxa surveyed with camera traps. As programming of cameras to record still images is often preferred over video recording due to reduced consumption of energy and memory, we expect this approach to find broad application, also for other camera trap methods than CTDS. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-10-13 /pmc/articles/PMC10571013/ /pubmed/37841220 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.10599 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Articles Kühl, Hjalmar S. Buckland, Stephen T. Henrich, Maik Howe, Eric Heurich, Marco Estimating effective survey duration in camera trap distance sampling surveys |
title | Estimating effective survey duration in camera trap distance sampling surveys |
title_full | Estimating effective survey duration in camera trap distance sampling surveys |
title_fullStr | Estimating effective survey duration in camera trap distance sampling surveys |
title_full_unstemmed | Estimating effective survey duration in camera trap distance sampling surveys |
title_short | Estimating effective survey duration in camera trap distance sampling surveys |
title_sort | estimating effective survey duration in camera trap distance sampling surveys |
topic | Research Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10571013/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37841220 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.10599 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kuhlhjalmars estimatingeffectivesurveydurationincameratrapdistancesamplingsurveys AT bucklandstephent estimatingeffectivesurveydurationincameratrapdistancesamplingsurveys AT henrichmaik estimatingeffectivesurveydurationincameratrapdistancesamplingsurveys AT howeeric estimatingeffectivesurveydurationincameratrapdistancesamplingsurveys AT heurichmarco estimatingeffectivesurveydurationincameratrapdistancesamplingsurveys |