Optimising camera traps for monitoring small mammals

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 8; no. 6; p. e67940
• Main Authors: Glen, Alistair S, Cockburn, Stuart, Nichols, Margaret, Ekanayake, Jagath, Warburton, Bruce
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 28.06.2013; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Animals; Birds; Cameras; Cats; Cats - physiology; Computer memory; Cues; Erinaceus europaeus; Felis catus; Feral populations; Field of view; Hedgehogs - physiology; Infrared detectors; Infrared photography; Invasive animals; Mammals; Mammals - physiology; Microwave sensors; Microwaves; Monitoring; Movement - physiology; Mustela erminea; Optimization; Photography - methods; Sensors; Studies; Target detection; Trapping; Traps; Video Recording - methods
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067940

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 (Mustelaerminea), feral cats (Felis catus) and hedgehogs (Erinaceuseuropaeus). 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.