Abstract
Simple SummaryCamera 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.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.
Highlights
Motion-triggered trail cameras are increasingly used in biological research for species inventories or the estimation of species activity
This study aimed to test whether the usage of different attractants, i.e., glandular secretions and tuna, increase the visiting rate of mustelids at camera traps, with a special focus on stone marten (Martes foina) and pine marten (Martes martes), which are our target species [18]
There was no significant difference2in detection probability between the treatments concerning the visits of the target species (χ = 1.418, df = 2, p = 0.492)
Summary
Motion-triggered trail cameras (hereafter camera traps) are increasingly used in biological research for species inventories or the estimation of species activity. Camera traps can be used to monitor an area without the presence of a human observer. Conducting, for example, species inventories with camera traps can help to detect the diversity at a specific site, and allows a comparison between sites and across seasons, and might even enable researchers to evaluate the impact of human presence on the distribution or behavior of different species [1]. Despite the benefits of camera trapping, medium sized-mammals, especially carnivores, are not easy to monitor, due to their mobility and mostly nocturnal and crepuscular activity. Camera traps frequently fail to detect all individuals of a species, which can bias density estimates
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
