Comparing methods for sampling large- and medium-sized mammals: camera traps and track plots

  • Maria Carolina Lyra-Jorge
  • Giordano Ciocheti
  • Vânia Regina Pivello
  • Sérgio Tadeu Meirelles
Original Paper

Abstract

Activities involving fauna monitoring are usually limited by the lack of resources; therefore, the choice of a proper and efficient methodology is fundamental to maximize the cost–benefit ratio. Both direct and indirect methods can be used to survey mammals, but the latter are preferred due to the difficulty to come in sight of and/or to capture the individuals, besides being cheaper. We compared the performance of two methods to survey medium and large-sized mammal: track plot recording and camera trapping, and their costs were assessed. At Jataí Ecological Station (S21°31'15"–W47°34'42"-Brazil) we installed ten camera traps along a dirt road directly in front of ten track plots, and monitored them for 10 days. We cleaned the plots, adjusted the cameras, and noted down the recorded species daily. Records taken by both methods showed they sample the local richness in different ways (Wilcoxon, T = 231; p ;; 0.01). The track plot method performed better on registering individuals whereas camera trapping provided records which permitted more accurate species identification. The type of infra-red sensor camera used showed a strong bias towards individual body mass (R2 = 0.70; p = 0.017), and the variable expenses of this method in a 10-day survey were estimated about 2.04 times higher compared to track plot method; however, in a long run camera trapping becomes cheaper than track plot recording. Concluding, track plot recording is good enough for quick surveys under a limited budget, and camera trapping is best for precise species identification and the investigation of species details, performing better for large animals. When used together, these methods can be complementary.

Keywords

Animal survey method Camera trap Track plot 

References

  1. Ayres M, Ayres M Jr, Ayres DL, Santos AS (2003) BioStat 3.0. Sociedade Civil Mamirauá/MCT-CNPq. Belém, PA. BrasilGoogle Scholar
  2. Barea-Azeón, JM, Virgós, E, Ballesteros-Duperón, E, Moleón, M, Chirosa, M (2007) Surveying carnivores at large spatial scales: a comparison of four broad-applied methods. Biodivers Conserv 16:1213–1230 doi:10.1007/s10531006-9114-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bider, JR (1968) Animal activity in uncontrolled terrestrial communities as determined by sand transect technique. Ecol Monogr 38:269–308 doi:10.2307/1948530 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carbone, C, Christie, S, Conforti, K, Coulson, T, Franklin, N, Ginsberg, JR et al (2001) The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals. Anim Conserv 4:75–79 doi:10.1017/S1367943001001081 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carbone, C, Conforti, C, Coulson, T, Franklin, N, Ginsberg, JN, Griffiths, M et al (2002) The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals: response to Jannelle et al. Anim Conserv 5:121–132 doi:10.1017/S1367943002002172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cutler, TL, Swann, DE (1999) Using remote photography in wildlife ecology: a review. Wildl Soc Bull 27:571–581Google Scholar
  7. Emmons, L (1997) Neotropical rainforest mammals: a field guide. University of Chicago Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. Gaidet-Drapier, N, Fritz, H, Bougarel, M, Renaud, PC, Poilecot, P, Chardonnet, P et al (2006) Cost and efficiency of large mammal census techniques: comparison of methods for a participatory approach in a communal area, Zimbabwe. Biol Conserv 15:735–754Google Scholar
  9. Jackson, RM, Roe, JD, Wangchuk, R, Hunter, DO (2006) Estimating snow leopard population abundance using photography and capture-recapture techniques. Wildl Soc Bull 34:772–781 doi:10.2193/00917648(2006)34[772:ESLPAU]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jannelle, CS, Runge, MC, Mackenzie, DI (2002) The use os photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals: a comment on mislanding conclusions. Anim Conserv 5:119–120 doi:10.1017/S1367943002002160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jones, C, McShea, WJ, Conroy, M, Kunz, TH (1996) Capturing mammals. In: Wilson, DE, Cole, FR, Nichols, JD, Rudran, R, Foster, MS (eds) Measuring and monitoring biological diversity. Standard methods for mammals. Smithsonian Institution, USA, pp 115–176Google Scholar
  12. Lyra-Jorge MC, Ciocheti G, Pivello VR (2008) Carnivore mammals in a fragmented landscape in northeast of São Paulo State, Brazil. Biodivers Conserv 17(7):1573–1580, JuneGoogle Scholar
  13. Martins, E (2003) Contabilidade e custos. Editora Atlas, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  14. Reif, V, Tornberg, R (2006) Using time-lapse digital video recording for a nesting study of birds of prey. Eur J Wildl Res 52(4):251–258, DecemberCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Reis NR (ed) (2006) Mamíferos do Brasil. Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Paraná BrasilGoogle Scholar
  16. Rudran, R, Kunz, TH, Jarman, SC, Smith, AP (1996) Observational techniques for nonvolant mammals. In: Wilson, DE, Cole, FR, Nichols, JD, Rudran, R, Foster, MS (eds) Measuring and monitoring biological diversity. Standard methods for mammals. Smithsonian Institution, USA, pp 81–114Google Scholar
  17. Sadlier, LMJ, Webbon, CC, Backer, PJ, Harris, S (2004) Methods of monitoring re foxes Vulpes vulpes and badgers Meles meles: are field signs the answer? Mammal Rev 34:75–98 doi:10.1046/j.03051838.2003.00029.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Scheibe, KM, Eichhorn, K, Wiesmayr, M, Schonert, B, Krone, O (2008) Long-term automatic video recording as a tool for analyzing the time patterns of utilization of predefined locations by wild animals. Eur J Wildl Res 54:53–59 doi:10.1007/s1034400701080 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shida, CN (2005) Carcterização física do cerrado Pé-de-Gigante e uso das terras na região. Evolução do uso das terras na região. In: Pivello, VR, Varanda, EO (eds) Cerrado Pé-de-Gigante. Parque Estadual de Vassununga. Ecologia e Conservação. SEMA, São Paulo, pp 25–47Google Scholar
  20. Silveira L (1999) Ecologia e conservação dos mamíferos carnívoros do Parque Nacional das Emas, Goiás. MsC thesis. Universidade Federal de Goiás. BrazilGoogle Scholar
  21. Silveira, L, Jácomo, AT, Diniz-Filho, JA (2003) Camera trap, line transect census and track surveys: a comparative evaluation. Biol Conserv 114:351–355 doi:10.1016/S00063207(03)000636 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Smallwood, KS, Fitzhugh, EL (1995) A track count for estimating mountain lion Felis concolor californica population trends. Biol Conserv 71:251–259 doi:10.1016/00063207(94)00034-N CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Srbek-Araújo, AC, Chiarello, AG (2005) Is camera-trapping an efficient method to surveying mammals in neotropical forest? J Trop Ecol 21:121–125 doi:10.1017/S0266467404001956 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Srbek-Araújo, AC, Chiarelo, AG (2007) Armadilhas fotográficas na amostragem de mamíferos: considerações metodológicas e comparação de equipamentos. Rev Bras Zool 24:647–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stander, PE (1998) Spoor counts as indices of large carnivores populations: the relationship between spoor frequency, sampling effort and true density. J Appl Ecol 35:378–385 doi:10.1046/j.13652664.1998.00313.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Swann, DE, Hass, CC, Dalton, DC, Wolf, SA (2004) Infra-triggered cameras for detecting wildlife: an evaluation and review. Wildl Soc Bull 32:357–365 doi:10.2193/00917648(2004)32[357:ICFDWA]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tomas WM, Miranda GHB (2003) Uso de armadilhas fotográficas em levantamentos populacionais. In: Cullen Jr L, Rudran R, Valladares-Pádua C (eds). Métodos de estudo em biologia da conservação e manejo da vida silvestre. Editora UFPR. pp 243–268Google Scholar
  28. Trolle, M, Noss, AJ, Lima, E, De, S, Dalponte, JC (2007) Câmera-trap studies of maned wolf density in the Cerrado and the Pantanal of Brazil. Biol Conserv 16:1197–1204Google Scholar
  29. Voss, RS, Emmons, LH (1996) Mammalian diversity in neotropical lowland rainforest: a preliminary assessment. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 230:1–115Google Scholar
  30. Wegge, P, Pokheral, C, Jnawali, SR (2004) Effects of trapping effort and trap shyness on estimates of tiger abundance from camera trap studies. Anim Conserv 7:251–256 doi:10.1017/S1367943004001441 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wemmer, C, Kunz, T, Lundie-Jekins, G, McShea, W (1996) Mammalian Sign. In: Wilson DE, Cole FR, Nichols JD, Rudran R, Foster MS (eds) Measuring and monitoring biological diversity. Standard methods for mammals. Smithsonian Institution, USA, pp 157–176Google Scholar
  32. York, EC, Moruzzi, TL, Fuller, TK, Organ, JF, Sauvajot, RM, De Graff, R (2001) Description and evaluation of a remote camera and triggering system to monitor carnivores. Wildl Soc Bull 29:1228–1237Google Scholar
  33. Zar, JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prencinton Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Carolina Lyra-Jorge
    • 1
  • Giordano Ciocheti
    • 1
  • Vânia Regina Pivello
    • 1
  • Sérgio Tadeu Meirelles
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de EcologiaUniversidade de São PauloCidade Universitária, São PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations