Cargando…
Baiting/Luring Improves Detection Probability and Species Identification—A Case Study of Mustelids with Camera Traps
SIMPLE SUMMARY: Camera traps are now widely used in animal research because they can monitor animals continuously. Nocturnal mammals are particularly difficult to monitor, and identification without cameras would be difficult. However, camera traps can be improved. We here compared two experimental...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7700128/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33266361 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani10112178 |
_version_ | 1783616206554529792 |
---|---|
author | Randler, Christoph Katzmaier, Tobias Kalb, Jochen Kalb, Nadine Gottschalk, Thomas K. |
author_facet | Randler, Christoph Katzmaier, Tobias Kalb, Jochen Kalb, Nadine Gottschalk, Thomas K. |
author_sort | Randler, Christoph |
collection | PubMed |
description | SIMPLE SUMMARY: Camera traps are now widely used in animal research because they can monitor animals continuously. Nocturnal mammals are particularly difficult to monitor, and identification without cameras would be difficult. However, camera traps can be improved. We here compared two experimental settings to increase detection and images taken of mustelids, mostly martens. Both tuna bait and glandular scents improved the detection and the number of images taken. Both methods were more successful than a control group setting without any attractants. ABSTRACT: Motion-triggered trail cameras (hereafter camera traps) are powerful tools which are increasingly used in biological research, especially for species inventories or the estimation of species activity. However, camera traps do not always reliably detect animal visits, as a target species might be too fast, too small, or too far away to trigger an image. Therefore, researchers often apply attractants, such as food or glandular scents, to increase the likelihood of capturing animals. Moreover, with attractants, individuals might remain in front of a camera trap for longer periods leading to a higher number of images and enhanced image quality, which in turn might aid in species identification. The current study compared how two commonly used attractants, bait (tuna) and glandular scent (mustelid mix), affected the detection and the number of images taken by camera traps compared to control camera sites with conventional camera traps. We used a before–after control group design, including a baseline. Attractants increased the probability of detecting the target species and number of images. Tuna experiments produced on average 7.25 times as many images per visit than control camera traps, and scent lures produced on average 18.7 times as many images per visit than the control traps. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7700128 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77001282020-11-30 Baiting/Luring Improves Detection Probability and Species Identification—A Case Study of Mustelids with Camera Traps Randler, Christoph Katzmaier, Tobias Kalb, Jochen Kalb, Nadine Gottschalk, Thomas K. Animals (Basel) Article SIMPLE SUMMARY: Camera traps are now widely used in animal research because they can monitor animals continuously. Nocturnal mammals are particularly difficult to monitor, and identification without cameras would be difficult. However, camera traps can be improved. We here compared two experimental settings to increase detection and images taken of mustelids, mostly martens. Both tuna bait and glandular scents improved the detection and the number of images taken. Both methods were more successful than a control group setting without any attractants. ABSTRACT: Motion-triggered trail cameras (hereafter camera traps) are powerful tools which are increasingly used in biological research, especially for species inventories or the estimation of species activity. However, camera traps do not always reliably detect animal visits, as a target species might be too fast, too small, or too far away to trigger an image. Therefore, researchers often apply attractants, such as food or glandular scents, to increase the likelihood of capturing animals. Moreover, with attractants, individuals might remain in front of a camera trap for longer periods leading to a higher number of images and enhanced image quality, which in turn might aid in species identification. The current study compared how two commonly used attractants, bait (tuna) and glandular scent (mustelid mix), affected the detection and the number of images taken by camera traps compared to control camera sites with conventional camera traps. We used a before–after control group design, including a baseline. Attractants increased the probability of detecting the target species and number of images. Tuna experiments produced on average 7.25 times as many images per visit than control camera traps, and scent lures produced on average 18.7 times as many images per visit than the control traps. MDPI 2020-11-22 /pmc/articles/PMC7700128/ /pubmed/33266361 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani10112178 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Randler, Christoph Katzmaier, Tobias Kalb, Jochen Kalb, Nadine Gottschalk, Thomas K. Baiting/Luring Improves Detection Probability and Species Identification—A Case Study of Mustelids with Camera Traps |
title | Baiting/Luring Improves Detection Probability and Species Identification—A Case Study of Mustelids with Camera Traps |
title_full | Baiting/Luring Improves Detection Probability and Species Identification—A Case Study of Mustelids with Camera Traps |
title_fullStr | Baiting/Luring Improves Detection Probability and Species Identification—A Case Study of Mustelids with Camera Traps |
title_full_unstemmed | Baiting/Luring Improves Detection Probability and Species Identification—A Case Study of Mustelids with Camera Traps |
title_short | Baiting/Luring Improves Detection Probability and Species Identification—A Case Study of Mustelids with Camera Traps |
title_sort | baiting/luring improves detection probability and species identification—a case study of mustelids with camera traps |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7700128/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33266361 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani10112178 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT randlerchristoph baitingluringimprovesdetectionprobabilityandspeciesidentificationacasestudyofmustelidswithcameratraps AT katzmaiertobias baitingluringimprovesdetectionprobabilityandspeciesidentificationacasestudyofmustelidswithcameratraps AT kalbjochen baitingluringimprovesdetectionprobabilityandspeciesidentificationacasestudyofmustelidswithcameratraps AT kalbnadine baitingluringimprovesdetectionprobabilityandspeciesidentificationacasestudyofmustelidswithcameratraps AT gottschalkthomask baitingluringimprovesdetectionprobabilityandspeciesidentificationacasestudyofmustelidswithcameratraps |