Effectiveness of thermal cameras compared to spotlights for counts of arid zone mammals across a range of ambient temperatures

Effective monitoring of mammal species is critical to their management. Thermal cameras may enable more accurate detection of nocturnal mammals than visual observation with the aid of spotlights. We aimed to measure improvements in detection provided by thermal cameras, and to determine how these improvements depended on ambient temperatures and mammal species. We monitored small to medium sized mammals in central Australia, including small rodents, bettongs, bilbies, European rabbits, and feral cats. We conducted 20 vehicle-based camera transects using both a spotlight and thermal camera under ambient temperatures ranging from 10°C to 35°C. Thermal cameras resulted in more detections of small rodents and medium sized mammals. There was no increased benefit for feral cats, likely due to their prominent eyeshine. We found a strong relationship between increased detections using thermal cameras and environmental temperature: thermal cameras detected 30% more animals than conventional spotlighting at approximately 15°C, but produced few additional detections above 30°C. Spotlighting may be more versatile as it can be used in a greater range of ambient temperatures, but thermal cameras are more accurate than visual surveys at low temperatures, and can be used to benchmark spotlight surveys.

The history of wildlife camera trapping as a survey tool in Australia

This paper provides an historical review of the technological evolution of camera trapping as a zoological survey tool in Australia. Camera trapping in Australia began in the 1950s when purpose-built remotely placed cameras were used in attempts to rediscover the thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus). However, camera traps did not appear in Australian research papers and Australasian conference proceedings until 1989–91, and usage became common only after 2008, with an exponential increase in usage since 2010. Initially, Australian publications under-reported camera trapping methods, often failing to provide fundamental details about deployment and use. However, rigour in reporting of key methods has increased during the recent widespread adoption of camera trapping. Our analysis also reveals a change in camera trap use in Australia, from simple presence–absence studies, to more theoretical and experimental approaches related to population ecology, behavioural ecology, conservation biology and wildlife management. Practitioners require further research to refine and standardise camera trap methods to ensure that unbiased and scientifically rigorous data are obtained from quantitative research. The recent change in emphasis of camera trapping research use is reflected in the decreasing range of camera trap models being used in Australian research. Practitioners are moving away from less effective models that have slow reaction times between detection and image capture, and inherent bias in detectability of fauna, to more expensive brands that offer faster speeds, greater functionality and more reliability.