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

Abstract 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 therefor...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Morgan L. Thomas, Lynn Baker, James R. Beattie, Andrew M. Baker
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Wiley 2020
Materias:	Antechinus arktos black‐tailed dusky antechinus camera trapping effectiveness live trapping Ecology QH540-549.5
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/afa76e82f65c4c819e6936badaf665fc
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:afa76e82f65c4c819e6936badaf665fc
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:afa76e82f65c4c819e6936badaf665fc2021-11-04T13:06:10ZDetermining the efficacy of camera traps, live capture traps, and detection dogs for locating cryptic small mammal species2045-775810.1002/ece3.5972https://doaj.org/article/afa76e82f65c4c819e6936badaf665fc2020-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5972https://doaj.org/toc/2045-7758Abstract 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.Morgan L. ThomasLynn BakerJames R. BeattieAndrew M. BakerWileyarticleAntechinus arktosblack‐tailed dusky antechinuscamera trappingeffectivenesslive trappingEcologyQH540-549.5ENEcology and Evolution, Vol 10, Iss 2, Pp 1054-1068 (2020)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Antechinus arktos black‐tailed dusky antechinus camera trapping effectiveness live trapping Ecology QH540-549.5
spellingShingle	Antechinus arktos black‐tailed dusky antechinus camera trapping effectiveness live trapping Ecology QH540-549.5 Morgan L. Thomas Lynn Baker James R. Beattie Andrew M. Baker Determining the efficacy of camera traps, live capture traps, and detection dogs for locating cryptic small mammal species
description	Abstract 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	article
author	Morgan L. Thomas Lynn Baker James R. Beattie Andrew M. Baker
author_facet	Morgan L. Thomas Lynn Baker James R. Beattie Andrew M. Baker
author_sort	Morgan L. Thomas
title	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_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_sort	determining the efficacy of camera traps, live capture traps, and detection dogs for locating cryptic small mammal species
publisher	Wiley
publishDate	2020
url	https://doaj.org/article/afa76e82f65c4c819e6936badaf665fc
work_keys_str_mv	AT morganlthomas determiningtheefficacyofcameratrapslivecapturetrapsanddetectiondogsforlocatingcrypticsmallmammalspecies AT lynnbaker determiningtheefficacyofcameratrapslivecapturetrapsanddetectiondogsforlocatingcrypticsmallmammalspecies AT jamesrbeattie determiningtheefficacyofcameratrapslivecapturetrapsanddetectiondogsforlocatingcrypticsmallmammalspecies AT andrewmbaker determiningtheefficacyofcameratrapslivecapturetrapsanddetectiondogsforlocatingcrypticsmallmammalspecies
_version_	1718444921737707520

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

Ejemplares similares