Snap happy: camera traps are an effective sampling tool when compared with alternative methods

Camera traps have become a ubiquitous tool in ecology and conservation. They are routinely deployed in wildlife survey and monitoring work, and are being advocated as a tool for planetary-scale biodiversity monitoring. The camera trap's widespread adoption is predicated on the assumption of its effectiveness, but the evidence base for this is lacking. Using 104 past studies, we recorded the qualitative overall recommendations made by study authors (for or against camera traps, or ambiguous), together with quantitative data on the effectiveness of camera traps (e.g. number of species detected or detection probabilities) relative to 22 other methods. Most studies recommended the use of camera traps overall and they were 39% more effective based on the quantitative data. They were significantly more effective compared with live traps (88%) and were otherwise comparable in effectiveness to other methods. Camera traps were significantly more effective than other methods at detecting a large number of species (31% more) and for generating detections of species (91% more). This makes camera traps particularly suitable for broad-spectrum biodiversity surveys. Film camera traps were found to be far less effective than digital models, which has led to an increase in camera trap effectiveness over time. There was also evidence from the authors that the use of attractants with camera traps reduced their effectiveness (counter to their intended effect), while the quantitative data indicated that camera traps were more effective in closed than open habitats. Camera traps are a highly effective wildlife survey tool and their performance will only improve with future technological advances. The images they produce also have a range of other benefits, for example as digital voucher specimens and as visual aids for outreach. The evidence-base supports the increasing use of camera traps and underlines their suitability for meeting the challenges of global-scale biodiversity monitoring.

Improving mesocarnivore detectability with lures in camera-trapping studies

Context Camera trapping is commonly employed for studying carnivores because it provides better data than do other methods, and with lower costs. Increasing the probability of detecting the target species can reduce parameter uncertainty and survey effort required to estimate density and occurrence. Different methods, including attractants and baits, can be used to increase detectability. However, their efficacy has rarely been quantitatively assessed. Aims To quantify the efficacy of scent and bait attractants to increase the detection probability of mesocarnivores by camera trapping. Methods We tested two scent lures, valerian extract (Val) and lynx urine (LU), their combination (Val–LU), and a non-reward bait (i.e. not accessible to the animal), raw chicken, as carnivore attractants in two protected areas of central Spain. We used camera-trapping records under an occupancy-modelling framework to estimate attractant-specific detection probabilities for six mesocarnivore species, and quantified their effects by comparing these estimates with the baseline (i.e. no attractant) detectability. Key results The weekly detection probability of four mesocarnivore species (red fox, Vulpes vulpes, stone marten, Martes foina, common genet, Genetta genetta, and Eurasian badger, Meles meles) significantly increased when Val–LU (between 0.11 ± 0.07 and 0.67 ± 0.05) or chicken (between 0.31 ± 0.02 and 0.77 ± 0.22) were used as attractant, when compared with baseline detectability (between 0.01 ± 0.02 and 0.29 ± 0.05). Although rarely, wildcats (Felis silvestris) were mostly detected with Val–LU. The probability of detecting a species after k sampling occasions (7 days each) where it was present was highly improved with both Val–LU and chicken for all species (e.g. from 0.20 to 0.98 after four sampling occasions with chicken for the stone marten). Both attractants reduced the sampling time required to ascertain that a species was absent to between 42% and 15% of baseline values. Conclusions The tested attractants greatly improved the detectability of most Iberian mesocarnivores. Although chicken was preferable for some species such as stone marten, Val–LU is most efficient for detecting the whole mesocarnivore community, including rare species such as wildcats. Implications Attractant selection in studies using non-invasive detection methods must be supported by quantitative assessment of the detection probability associated to each attractant. Researchers must choose those attractants best fitting target species and study aims.