Developing an empirical approach to optimal camera-trap deployment at mammal resting sites: evidence from a longitudinal study of an otter Lutra lutra holt

  • Melanie A. FindlayEmail author
  • Robert A. Briers
  • Neil Diamond
  • Patrick J. C. White
Methods Paper


The study of nocturnal mammals relies on indirect evidence or invasive methods involving capture and tagging of individuals. Indirect methods are prone to error, while capture and tagging mammals have logistical and ethical considerations. Off-the-shelf camera traps are perceived as an accessible, non-intrusive method for direct data gathering, having many benefits but also potential biases. Here, using a 6-year camera-trap study of a Eurasian otter holt (den), we evaluate key parameters of study design. First, we analyse patterns of holt use in relation to researcher visits to maintain the camera traps. Then, using a dual camera-trap deployment, we compare the success of data capture from each camera-trap position in relation to the dual setup. Finally, we provide analyses to optimise minimum survey effort and camera-trap programming. Our findings indicate that otter presence and resting patterns were unaffected by the researcher visits. Results were significantly better using a close camera-trap emplacement than a distant. There was a higher frequency of otter activity at the holt during the natal and early rearing period which has implications for determining the minimum survey duration. Reducing video clip duration from 30 to 19 s would have included 95% of instances where sex could be identified, and saved 35–40% of memory storage. Peaks of otter activity were related to sunrise and sunset; exclusion of diurnal hours would have missed 11% of registrations. Camera-trap studies would benefit by adopting a similar framework of analyses in the preliminary stages or during a trial period to inform subsequent methodological refinements.


Camera-trap bias Methodology Monitoring Study design 



Many thanks to Roger Ingledew who shared the task of camera-trap maintenance throughout the study period.


  1. Adamič MH, Smole J (2011) Phototraps as a non-invasive method of monitoring otters (Lutra lutra): what can we expect? IUCN Otter Spec Gr Bull 28(A):60–69Google Scholar
  2. Allaire JJ (2014) Manipulate: interactive plots for RStudio. R package version 1.0.1.
  3. Bates DM, Machler M, Bolker BM, Walker SC (2014) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:51Google Scholar
  4. Bivand R, & Lewin-Koh N (2016) Maptools: tools for reading and 845 handling spatial objects.
  5. Bivand R, Rundel C (2016) Rgeos: interface to Geometry Engine - Open Source (GEOS). R package version 0.3-21.
  6. Brzeziński M, Rodak Ł, Zalewski A (2014) “Reversed” intraguild predation: red fox cubs killed by pine marten. Acta Theriol (Warsz) 59:473–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chadwick EA, Sherrard-Smith E (2010) Pregnancy among otters (Lutra lutra) found dead in England and Wales: foetal development and lack of seasonality. IUCN Otter Spec Gr Bull 27:33–41Google Scholar
  8. Day CC, Westover MD, Hall LK, Larsen RT, Mcmillan BR (2016) Comparing direct and indirect methods to estimate detection rates and site use of a cryptic semi-aquatic carnivore. Ecol Indic 66:230–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Durbin LS (1996) Some changes in the habitat use of a free-ranging female otter Lutra lutra during breeding. J Zool 240:761–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erlinge S (1967) Home range of the otter Lutra lutra L. in southern Sweden. Oikos 18:186–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. EU (2007) Guidance document on the strict protection of animal species of community interest under the habitats directive 92/43/EECGoogle Scholar
  12. European Commission (1992) Council directive 92/43/ECC. Off J Eur Union 94:40–52Google Scholar
  13. Fahimi H, Yusefi GH, Madjdzadeh SM, Damangir AA, Sehhatisabet ME, Khalatbari L (2011) Camera traps reveal use of caves by Asiatic black bears (Ursus thibetanus gedrosianus) (Mammalia: Ursidae) in southeastern Iran. J Nat Hist 45:2363–2373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gese EM (2001) Monitoring of terrestrial carnivore populations. In: Gittleman J, Funk S, Macdonald D, Wayne R (eds) Carnivore conservation. Cambridge University Press, Ithaca, New York, pp 372–396Google Scholar
  15. Gibeau ML, McTavish C (2009) How to prevent camera traps from skewing animal behavior. Wildl Prof 3:35–37Google Scholar
  16. Glen AS, Cockburn S, Nichols M, Ekanayake J, Warburton B (2013) Optimising camera traps for monitoring small mammals. PLoS One 8:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Green J, Green R, Jefferies D (1984) A radio-tracking survey of otters Lutra lutra on a Perthsire river system. Lutra 27:85–145Google Scholar
  18. Grolemund G, Wickham H (2011) Dates and times made easy with lubridate. J Stat Softw 40:1–25Google Scholar
  19. Gužvica G, Bošnjak I, Bielen A, Babić D, Radanović-Gužvica B, Sver L (2014) Comparative analysis of three different methods for monitoring the use of green bridges by wildlife. PLoS One 9:1–12Google Scholar
  20. Howe EJ, Buckland ST, Després-Einspenner M-L, Kühl HS (2017) Distance sampling with camera traps. Methods Ecol Evol 8:1558–1565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huang ZP, Qi XG, Garber PA, Jin T, Guo ST, Li S, Li BG (2014) The use of camera traps to identify the set of scavengers preying on the carcass of a golden snub-nosed monkey (Rhinopithecus roxellana). PLoS One 9:1–6Google Scholar
  22. Jenkins D (1980) Ecology of otters in northern Scotland: I. Otter (Lutra lutra) breeding and dispersion in mid-Deeside, Aberdeenshire in 1974-79. J Anim Ecol 49:713–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kanchanasaka B (2001) Tracks and other signs of the hairy-nosed otter (Lutra sumatrana). IUCN Otter Spec Gr Bull 18:2–7Google Scholar
  24. Kilshaw K, MacDonald DW (2011). The use of camera trapping as a method to survey for the Scottish wildcat. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report 479:1–32Google Scholar
  25. Kruuk H (2006) Otters: ecology, behaviour and conservation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuhn R, Meyer W (2009) Infrared thermography of the body surface in the Eurasian otter Lutra lutra and the giant otter Pteronura brasiliensis. Aquat Biol 6:143–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lerone L, Carpaneto GM, Loy A (2015) Why camera traps fail to detect a semi-aquatic mammal: activation devices as possible cause. Wildl Soc Bull 39:193–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lucherini M, Reppucci JIJ, Walker RS, Villalba ML, Wurstten A, Gallardo G, Iriarte A, Villalobos R, Perovic P (2009) Activity patterns and segregation of carnivores in the High Andes. J Mammal 90:1404–1409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meek P, Ballard G, Fleming P, Falzon G (2016) Are we getting the full picture? Animal responses to camera traps and implications for predator studies. Ecol Evol 6:3216–3225CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Meek PD, Ballard GA, Fleming PJS, Schaefer M, Williams W, Falzon G (2014) Camera traps can be heard and seen by animals. PLoS One 9:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mugerwa B, Sheil D, Ssekiranda P, Van Heist M, Ezuma P (2013) A camera trap assessment of terrestrial vertebrates in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda. Afr J Ecol 51:21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Munoz D, Kapfer J, Olfenbuttel C (2014) Do available products to mask human scent influence camera trap survey results? Wildlife Biol 20:246–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Newey S, Davidson P, Nazir S, Fairhurst G, Verdicchio F, Irvine RJ, van der Wal R (2015) Limitations of recreational camera traps for wildlife management and conservation research: a practitioner’s perspective. Ambio 44:624–635CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Pickles R, Zambrana V, Hoffmann-Heap I, Salinas A, Groombridge J, van Damme P (2011) An evaluation of the utility of camera traps in monitoring giant otter populations. IUCN Otter Spec Gr Bull 28:39–45Google Scholar
  35. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
  36. Rheingantz ML, Leuchtenberger C, Zucco CA, Fernandez FAS (2016) Differences in activity patterns of the Neotropical otter Lontra longicaudis between rivers of two Brazilian ecoregions. J Trop Ecol 32:170–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roos, A., Loy, A., De Silva, P., Hajkova, P. & Zemanová, B. (2015). Lutra lutra. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T12419A21935287. [WWW Document]. URL Doi:
  38. Rowcliffe JM, Carbone C (2008) Surveys using camera traps: are we looking to a brighter future? Anim Conserv 11:185–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rowcliffe MJ, Carbone C, Jansen PA, Kays R, Kranstauber B (2011) Quantifying the sensitivity of camera traps: an adapted distance sampling approach. Methods Ecol Evol 2:464–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rowcliffe JM, Field J, Turvey ST, Carbone C (2008) Estimating animal density using camera traps without the need for individual recognition. J Appl Ecol 45:1228–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. RStudio Team (2016) RStudio: integrated development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston.
  42. Ruiz-Olmo J, Olmo-vidal JM, Manas S, Batet A (2002) The influence of resource seasonality on the breeding patterns of the Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra) in Mediterranean habitats. Can J Zool 80:2178–2189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sollmann R, Kelly MJ (2013) Camera trapping for the study and conservation of tropical carnivores. Raffles Bull Zool 28:21–42Google Scholar
  44. Swann DE, Hass CC, Dalton DC, Wolf SA (2004) Infrared-triggered cameras for detecting wildlife: an evaluation and review. Wildl Soc Bull 32:357–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tobler MW, Zúñiga Hartley A, Carrillo-Percastegui SE, Powell GVN (2015) Spatiotemporal hierarchical modelling of species richness and occupancy using camera trap data. J Appl Ecol 52:413–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wegge P, Pokheral CP, Jnawali SR (2004) Effects of trapping effort and trap shyness on estimates of tiger abundance from camera trap studies. Anim Conserv 7:251–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wellington K, Bottom C, Merrill C, Litvaitis JA (2014) Identifying performance differences among trail cameras used to monitor forest mammals. Wildl Soc Bull 38:634–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yoxon G, Yoxon P (1990) Otter survey of the Isle of Skye, Scotland (Lutra lutra). IUCN Otter Spec Gr Bull 5:70–75Google Scholar
  49. Yoxon P, Yoxon K (2014) Estimating otter numbers using spraints: is it possible? J Mar Biol 2014:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melanie A. Findlay
    • 1
    Email author
  • Robert A. Briers
    • 1
  • Neil Diamond
    • 1
  • Patrick J. C. White
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Applied SciencesEdinburgh Napier UniversityEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations