Cargando…

Determining the efficacy of camera traps, live capture traps, and detection dogs for locating cryptic small mammal species

Metal box (e.g., Elliott, Sherman) traps and remote cameras are two of the most commonly employed methods presently used to survey terrestrial mammals. However, their relative efficacy at accurately detecting cryptic small mammals has not been adequately assessed. The present study therefore compare...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thomas, Morgan L., Baker, Lynn, Beattie, James R., Baker, Andrew M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6988557/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32015864
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5972
_version_ 1783492286864162816
author Thomas, Morgan L.
Baker, Lynn
Beattie, James R.
Baker, Andrew M.
author_facet Thomas, Morgan L.
Baker, Lynn
Beattie, James R.
Baker, Andrew M.
author_sort Thomas, Morgan L.
collection PubMed
description Metal box (e.g., Elliott, Sherman) traps and remote cameras are two of the most commonly employed methods presently used to survey terrestrial mammals. However, their relative efficacy at accurately detecting cryptic small mammals has not been adequately assessed. The present study therefore compared the effectiveness of metal box (Elliott) traps and vertically oriented, close range, white flash camera traps in detecting small mammals occurring in the Scenic Rim of eastern Australia. We also conducted a preliminary survey to determine effectiveness of a conservation detection dog (CDD) for identifying presence of a threatened carnivorous marsupial, Antechinus arktos, in present‐day and historical locations, using camera traps to corroborate detections. 200 Elliott traps and 20 white flash camera traps were set for four deployments per method, across a site where the target small mammals, including A. arktos, are known to occur. Camera traps produced higher detection probabilities than Elliott traps for all four species. Thus, vertically mounted white flash cameras were preferable for detecting the presence of cryptic small mammals in our survey. The CDD, which had been trained to detect A. arktos scat, indicated in total 31 times when deployed in the field survey area, with subsequent camera trap deployments specifically corroborating A. arktos presence at 100% (3) indication locations. Importantly, the dog indicated twice within Border Ranges National Park, where historical (1980s–1990s) specimen‐based records indicate the species was present, but extensive Elliott and camera trapping over the last 5–10 years have resulted in zero A. arktos captures. Camera traps subsequently corroborated A. arktos presence at these sites. This demonstrates that detection dogs can be a highly effective means of locating threatened, cryptic species, especially when traditional methods are unable to detect low‐density mammal populations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6988557
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69885572020-02-03 Determining the efficacy of camera traps, live capture traps, and detection dogs for locating cryptic small mammal species Thomas, Morgan L. Baker, Lynn Beattie, James R. Baker, Andrew M. Ecol Evol Original Research Metal box (e.g., Elliott, Sherman) traps and remote cameras are two of the most commonly employed methods presently used to survey terrestrial mammals. However, their relative efficacy at accurately detecting cryptic small mammals has not been adequately assessed. The present study therefore compared the effectiveness of metal box (Elliott) traps and vertically oriented, close range, white flash camera traps in detecting small mammals occurring in the Scenic Rim of eastern Australia. We also conducted a preliminary survey to determine effectiveness of a conservation detection dog (CDD) for identifying presence of a threatened carnivorous marsupial, Antechinus arktos, in present‐day and historical locations, using camera traps to corroborate detections. 200 Elliott traps and 20 white flash camera traps were set for four deployments per method, across a site where the target small mammals, including A. arktos, are known to occur. Camera traps produced higher detection probabilities than Elliott traps for all four species. Thus, vertically mounted white flash cameras were preferable for detecting the presence of cryptic small mammals in our survey. The CDD, which had been trained to detect A. arktos scat, indicated in total 31 times when deployed in the field survey area, with subsequent camera trap deployments specifically corroborating A. arktos presence at 100% (3) indication locations. Importantly, the dog indicated twice within Border Ranges National Park, where historical (1980s–1990s) specimen‐based records indicate the species was present, but extensive Elliott and camera trapping over the last 5–10 years have resulted in zero A. arktos captures. Camera traps subsequently corroborated A. arktos presence at these sites. This demonstrates that detection dogs can be a highly effective means of locating threatened, cryptic species, especially when traditional methods are unable to detect low‐density mammal populations. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-01-08 /pmc/articles/PMC6988557/ /pubmed/32015864 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5972 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Thomas, Morgan L.
Baker, Lynn
Beattie, James R.
Baker, Andrew M.
Determining the efficacy of camera traps, live capture traps, and detection dogs for locating cryptic small mammal species
title Determining the efficacy of camera traps, live capture traps, and detection dogs for locating cryptic small mammal species
title_full Determining the efficacy of camera traps, live capture traps, and detection dogs for locating cryptic small mammal species
title_fullStr Determining the efficacy of camera traps, live capture traps, and detection dogs for locating cryptic small mammal species
title_full_unstemmed Determining the efficacy of camera traps, live capture traps, and detection dogs for locating cryptic small mammal species
title_short Determining the efficacy of camera traps, live capture traps, and detection dogs for locating cryptic small mammal species
title_sort determining the efficacy of camera traps, live capture traps, and detection dogs for locating cryptic small mammal species
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6988557/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32015864
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5972
work_keys_str_mv AT thomasmorganl determiningtheefficacyofcameratrapslivecapturetrapsanddetectiondogsforlocatingcrypticsmallmammalspecies
AT bakerlynn determiningtheefficacyofcameratrapslivecapturetrapsanddetectiondogsforlocatingcrypticsmallmammalspecies
AT beattiejamesr determiningtheefficacyofcameratrapslivecapturetrapsanddetectiondogsforlocatingcrypticsmallmammalspecies
AT bakerandrewm determiningtheefficacyofcameratrapslivecapturetrapsanddetectiondogsforlocatingcrypticsmallmammalspecies