24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Take Only Photographs, Leave Only Footprints: Novel Applications of Non-Invasive Survey Methods for Rapid Detection of Small, Arboreal Animals

      research-article
      1 , 2 ,   1 , 1 , *
      PLoS ONE
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The development of appropriate wildlife survey techniques is essential to promote effective and efficient monitoring of species of conservation concern. Here, we demonstrate the utility of two rapid-assessment, non-invasive methods to detect the presence of elusive, small, arboreal animals. We use the hazel dormouse, Muscardinus avellanarius, a rodent of conservation concern, as our focal species. Prevailing hazel dormouse survey methods are prolonged (often taking months to years to detect dormice), dependent on season and habitat, and/or have low detection rates. Alternatives would be of great use to ecologists who undertake dormouse surveys, especially those assessing the need for mitigation measures, as legally required for building development projects. Camera traps and footprint tracking are well-established tools for monitoring elusive large terrestrial mammals, but are rarely used for small species such as rodents, or in arboreal habitats. In trials of these adapted methods, hazel dormice visited bait stations and were successfully detected by both camera traps and tracking equipment at each of two woodland study sites, within days to weeks of installation. Camera trap images and footprints were of adequate quality to allow discrimination between two sympatric small mammal species (hazel dormouse and wood mouse, Apodemus sylvaticus). We discuss the relative merits of these methods with respect to research aims, funds, time available and habitat.

          Related collections

          Most cited references5

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Presence-absence versus abundance data for monitoring threatened species.

          Effective detection of population trend is crucial for managing threatened species. Little theory exists, however, to assist managers in choosing the most cost-effective monitoring techniques for diagnosing trend. We present a framework for determining the optimal monitoring strategy by simulating a manager collecting data on a declining species, the Chestnut-rumped Hylacola (Hylacola pyrrhopygia parkeri), to determine whether the species should be listed under the IUCN (World Conservation Union) Red List. We compared the efficiencies of two strategies for detecting trend, abundance, and presence-absence surveys, under financial constraints. One might expect the abundance surveys to be superior under all circumstances because more information is collected at each site. Nevertheless, the presence-absence data can be collected at more sites because the surveyor is not obliged to spend a fixed amount of time at each site. The optimal strategy for monitoring was very dependent on the budget available. Under some circumstances, presence-absence surveys outperformed abundance surveys for diagnosing the IUCN Red List categories cost-effectively. Abundance surveys were best if the species was expected to be recorded more than 16 times/year; otherwise, presence-absence surveys were best. The relationship between the strategies we investigated is likely to be relevant for many comparisons of presence-absence or abundance data. Managers of any cryptic or low-density species who hope to maximize their success of estimating trend should find an application for our results.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Current trends in plant and animal population monitoring.

            Animal and plant population monitoring programs are critical for identifying species at risk, evaluating the effects of management or harvest, and tracking invasive and pest species. Nevertheless, monitoring activities are highly decentralized, which makes it difficult for researchers or conservation planners to get a good general picture of what real-world monitoring programs actually entail. We used a Web-based survey to collect information on population monitoring programs. The survey focused on basic questions about each program, including motivations for monitoring, types of data being collected, spatiotemporal design of the program, and reasons for choosing that design. We received responses from 311 people involved in monitoring of various species and used these responses to summarize ongoing monitoring efforts. We also used responses to determine whether monitoring strategies have changed over time and whether they differed among monitoring agencies. Most commonly, monitoring entailed collection of count data at multiple sites with the primary goal of detecting trends. But we also found that goals and strategies for monitoring appeared to be diversifying, that area-occupied and presence-absence approaches appeared to be gaining in popularity, and that several other promising approaches (monitoring to reduce parameter uncertainty, risk-based monitoring, and directly linking monitoring data to management decisions) have yet to become widely established. We suggest that improved communication between researchers studying monitoring designs and those who are charged with putting these designs into practice could further improve monitoring programs and better match sampling designs to the objectives of monitoring programs.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Optimising Camera Traps for Monitoring Small Mammals

              Practical techniques are required to monitor invasive animals, which are often cryptic and occur at low density. Camera traps have potential for this purpose, but may have problems detecting and identifying small species. A further challenge is how to standardise the size of each camera’s field of view so capture rates are comparable between different places and times. We investigated the optimal specifications for a low-cost camera trap for small mammals. The factors tested were 1) trigger speed, 2) passive infrared vs. microwave sensor, 3) white vs. infrared flash, and 4) still photographs vs. video. We also tested a new approach to standardise each camera’s field of view. We compared the success rates of four camera trap designs in detecting and taking recognisable photographs of captive stoats ( Mustela erminea ), feral cats ( Felis catus ) and hedgehogs ( Erinaceus europaeus ). Trigger speeds of 0.2–2.1 s captured photographs of all three target species unless the animal was running at high speed. The camera with a microwave sensor was prone to false triggers, and often failed to trigger when an animal moved in front of it. A white flash produced photographs that were more readily identified to species than those obtained under infrared light. However, a white flash may be more likely to frighten target animals, potentially affecting detection probabilities. Video footage achieved similar success rates to still cameras but required more processing time and computer memory. Placing two camera traps side by side achieved a higher success rate than using a single camera. Camera traps show considerable promise for monitoring invasive mammal control operations. Further research should address how best to standardise the size of each camera’s field of view, maximise the probability that an animal encountering a camera trap will be detected, and eliminate visible or audible cues emitted by camera traps.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                20 January 2016
                2016
                : 11
                : 1
                : e0146142
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Ecology and Conservation, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, Penryn, Cornwall, United Kingdom
                [2 ]School of Life Sciences, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, United Kingdom
                University of Tasmania, AUSTRALIA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: CAM DJH BJG. Performed the experiments: CAM. Analyzed the data: CAM DJH BJG. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: CAM DJH BJG. Wrote the paper: CAM DJH BJG.

                Article
                PONE-D-14-52556
                10.1371/journal.pone.0146142
                4720397
                26789632
                6ca70859-5b5e-41e5-91e2-33140a488329
                © 2016 Mills et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

                History
                : 8 December 2014
                : 13 December 2015
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 1, Pages: 12
                Funding
                The work in this study was undertaken as part of a self-funded PhD and the authors have no support or funding to report for the work outlined in this manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article