Advertisement

The value of by-catch data: how species-specific surveys can serve non-target species

  • Maria Vittoria MazzamutoEmail author
  • Mario Lo Valvo
  • Stefano Anile
Original Article

Abstract

Camera trapping has a wide range of research application, but, while research designs are often focused on the study of a single focal species, cameras can also record other non-target species. Occupancy modeling using by-catch data can be a valuable resource to gain information on these species maximizing the scientific effort and efficiency of wildlife surveys. In this study, we used by-catch data from a European wildcat (Felis silvestris silvestris) survey in Southern Italy to assess the habitat covariates determinant for the occupancy of the crested porcupine (Hystrix cristata). We recorded 33 detections at 17 out of 51 cameras (naïve occupancy = 0.33). The best models fitted the data well, and porcupine occupancy estimate was 0.58 (SE ± 0.09) with a detection probability of 0.11 (SE ± 0.03). Average model showed that woodlands and number of shrub patches increased porcupine occupancy, while the reverse was true for altitude. Our results have improved the insights on the habitat use and ecological needs of this understudied species, and it is the first study that develops occupancy models for the porcupine using the presence/absence data obtained from a camera trap survey. Our study is an example of how camera trap surveys are often an under-exploited source of valuable information on a wider spectrum of sympatric species beyond the focal species for which camera traps were deployed. Minimum requirements for a camera trap survey to provide robust occupancy estimates for non-target species are discussed.

Keywords

Camera trapping Crested porcupine Habitat use Mt. Etna Occupancy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Marisa Mazzaglia (former president of Etna Regional park) for supporting the wildcat research that allowed the collection of data also on other wildlife species in the Park. The study would have not been possible without the support of Luigi Piccinini and Maurizio Pennisi (Ripartizione Faunistico Venatoria di Catania) that provided the cameras used in this study. We thank Emiliano Mori for his advice on the ecology of the crested porcupine and Jeff Dolphin for the language revision. Finally, the authors thank two anonymous reviewers that, with their helpful and insightful comments, have improved the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Etna Regional Park.

Supplementary material

10344_2019_1310_MOESM1_ESM.docx (18 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 17 kb)

References

  1. Anile S, Bizzarri L, Lacrimini M, Sforzi A, Ragni B, Devillard S (2018) Home-range size of the European wildcat (Felis silvestris silvestris): a report from two areas in Central Italy. Mammalia 82:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1515/mammalia-2016-0045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anile S, Devillard S (2016) Study design and body mass influence RAIs from camera trap studies: evidence from the Felidae. Anim Conserv 19:35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anile S, Devillard S, Ragni B et al (2019) Habitat fragmentation and anthropogenic factors affect wildcat (Felis silvestris silvestris) occupancy and detectability on Mt. Etna Wildl Biol online first.  https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00561
  4. Barrios-Garcia MN, Ballari SA (2012) Impact of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in its introduced and native range: a review. Biol Invasions 14:2283–2300.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0229-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruno E, Riccardi C (1995) The diet of the crested porcupine Hystrix cristata L., 1758 in a Mediterranean rural area. Z Für Säugetierkd 60:226–236Google Scholar
  6. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2004) Multimodel Inference. Understanding AIC and BIC in Model Selection Sociol Methods Res 33:261–304.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124104268644 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burton AC, Neilson E, Moreira D, Ladle A, Steenweg R, Fisher JT, Bayne E, Boutin S (2015) REVIEW: wildlife camera trapping: a review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes. J Appl Ecol 52:675–685.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12432 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corsini MT, Lovari S, Sonnino S (1995) Temporal activity patterns of crested porcupines Hystrix cristata. J Zool 236:43–54.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1995.tb01783.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dinata Y, Nugroho A, Haidir IA, Linkie M (2008) Camera trapping rare and threatened avifauna in west-Central Sumatra. Bird Conserv Int 18:30–37.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270908000051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edwards S, Cooper S, Uiseb K, Hayward M, Wachter B, Melzheimer J (2018) Making the most of by-catch data: assessing the feasibility of utilising non-target camera trap data for occupancy modelling of a large felid. Afr J Ecol 56:885–894.  https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12511 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferreguetti AC, Tomas WM, Bergallo HG (2018) Patch occupancy and activity pattern of the spotted paca (Cuniculus paca Linnaeus, 1766) in a protected area of the Atlantic Forest, Brazil. Mammalia 0:363–371.  https://doi.org/10.1515/mammalia-2017-0095 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fiske I, Chandler R (2011) Unmarked : an R package for fitting hierarchical models of wildlife occurrence and abundance. J Stat Softw 43.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v043.i10
  13. Gaskamp JA, Gee KL, Campbell TA, Silvy NJ, Webb SL (2018) Damage caused to rangelands by wild pig rooting activity is mitigated with intensive trapping. Cogent Environ Sci 4:1540080.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2018.1540080 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glen AS, Cockburn S, Nichols M, Ekanayake J, Warburton B (2013) Optimising camera traps for monitoring small mammals. PLoS One 8:e67940.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067940 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Hofmeester TR, Cromsigt JPGM, Odden J, Andrén H, Kindberg J, Linnell JDC (2019) Framing pictures: a conceptual framework to identify and correct for biases in detection probability of camera traps enabling multi-species comparison. Ecol Evol 9:2320–2336.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4878 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Kunkel KE, Karl TR, Brooks H, Kossin J, Lawrimore JH, Arndt D, Bosart L, Changnon D, Cutter SL, Doesken N, Emanuel K, Groisman PY, Katz RW, Knutson T, O'Brien J, Paciorek CJ, Peterson TC, Redmond K, Robinson D, Trapp J, Vose R, Weaver S, Wehner M, Wolter K, Wuebbles D (2012) Monitoring and understanding trends in extreme storms: state of knowledge. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 94:499–514.  https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00262.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Laurenzi A, Bodino N, Mori E (2016) Much ado about nothing: assessing the impact of a problematic rodent on agriculture and native trees. Mammal Res 61:65–72.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13364-015-0248-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lovari S, Corsini MT, Guazzini B, Romeo G, Mori E (2017) Suburban ecology of the crested porcupine in a heavily poached area: a global approach. Eur J Wildl Res 63.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-016-1075-0
  19. Lovari S, Sforzi A, Mori E (2013) Habitat richness affects home range size in a monogamous large rodent. Behav Process 99:42–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2013.06.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lucherini M, Lovari S, Crema G (1995) Habitat use and ranging behaviour of the red fox ( Vulpes vulpes ) in a Mediterranean rural area: is shelter availability a key factor? J Zool 237:577–591.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1995.tb05016.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Royle JA et al (2017) Occupancy estimation and modeling: inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  22. Masseti M, Albarella U, Mazzorin JDG (2010) The crested porcupine, Hystrix cristata L., 1758, in Italy. Anthropozoologica 45:27–42.  https://doi.org/10.5252/az2010n2a2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mazerolle MJ (2016) AICcmodavg: model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q)AIC(c)Google Scholar
  24. Melletti M, Meijaard E (2017) Ecology, conservation and Management of Wild Pigs and Peccaries. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  25. Monetti L, Massolo A, Sforzi A, Lovari S (2005) Site selection and fidelity by crested porcupines for denning. Ethol Ecol Evol 17:149–159.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08927014.2005.9522604 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Monterroso P, Brito JC, Ferreras P, Alves PC (2009) Spatial ecology of the European wildcat in a Mediterranean ecosystem: dealing with small radio-tracking datasets in species conservation. J Zool 279:27–35.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2009.00585.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mori E (2017) Porcupines in the landscape of fear: effect of hunting with dogs on the behaviour of a non-target species. Mammal Res 62:251–258.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13364-017-0313-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mori E, Bozzi R, Laurenzi A (2017) Feeding habits of the crested porcupine Hystrix cristata L. 1758 (Mammalia, Rodentia) in a Mediterranean area of Central Italy. Eur Zool J 84:261–265.  https://doi.org/10.1080/24750263.2017.1329358 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mori E, Lovari S, Sforzi A, Romeo G, Pisani C, Massolo A, Fattorini L (2014a) Patterns of spatial overlap in a monogamous large rodent, the crested porcupine. Behav Process 107:112–118.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.08.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mori E, Maggini I, Menchetti M (2014b) When quills kill: the defense strategy of the crested porcupine Hystrix cristata L., 1758. Mammalia 78.  https://doi.org/10.1515/mammalia-2013-0126
  31. Mori E, Sforzi A, Bogliani G, Milanesi P (2018) Range expansion and redefinition of a crop-raiding rodent associated with global warming and temperature increase. Clim Chang 150:319–331.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2261-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mori E, Sforzi A, Di Febbraro M (2013) From the Apennines to the Alps: recent range expansion of the crested porcupine Hystrix cristata L., 1758 (Mammalia: Rodentia: Hystricidae) in Italy. Ital J Zool 80:469–480.  https://doi.org/10.1080/11250003.2013.857729 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nie Y, Zhou W, Gao K, Swaisgood RR, Wei F (2019) Seasonal competition between sympatric species for a key resource: implications for conservation management. Biol Conserv 234:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.03.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Niedballa J, Sollmann R, Courtiol A, Wilting A (2016) camtrapR : an R package for efficient camera trap data management. Methods Ecol Evol 7:1457–1462.  https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12600 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. O’Brien TG (2008) On the use of automated cameras to estimate species richness for large- and medium-sized rainforest mammals. Anim Conserv 11:179–181.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2008.00178.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. O’Connell AF, Nichols JD, Karanth KU (2010) Camera traps in animal ecology: methods and analyses. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  37. Pamplin FA (2013) Optimising the value of by-catch from Lynx lynx camera trap surveys in the Swiss Jura region. University of East Anglia, MSc in in Applied Ecology and ConservationGoogle Scholar
  38. QGIS development team (2019) quantum GIS. Open Source Geospatial Foundation ProjectGoogle Scholar
  39. Rovero F, Martin E, Rosa M, Ahumada JA, Spitale D (2014) Estimating species richness and modelling habitat preferences of tropical Forest mammals from camera trap data. PLoS One 9:e103300.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103300 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Rovero F, Zimmermann F (2016) Camera trapping for wildlife research. Pelagic Publishing Ltd, Exeter, UKGoogle Scholar
  41. Rovero F, Zimmermann F, Berzi D, Meek P (2013) “Which camera trap type and how many do I need?” a review of camera features and study designs for a range of wildlife research applications. Hystrix Ital J Mammal 24:148–156. doi:  https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-24.2-8789
  42. Sonnino S (1998) Spatial activity and habitat use of crested porcupine, Hystrix cristata L., 1758 (Rodentia, Hystricidae) in Central Italy. Mammalia 62.  https://doi.org/10.1515/mamm.1998.62.2.175
  43. Strampelli P, Andresen L, Everatt KT, Somers MJ, Rowcliffe JM (2018) Habitat use responses of the African leopard in a human-disturbed region of rural Mozambique. Mamm Biol 89:14–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2017.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Trenberth KE (2011) Changes in precipitation with climate change. Clim Res 47:123–138.  https://doi.org/10.3354/cr00953 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Welbourne DJ, MacGregor C, Paull D, Lindenmayer DB (2015) The effectiveness and cost of camera traps for surveying small reptiles and critical weight range mammals: a comparison with labour-intensive complementary methods. Wildl Res 42:414–425.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WR15054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Natural Resources and EnvironmentUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Biologiche Chimiche e FarmaceuticheUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly
  3. 3.Cooperative Wildlife Research LaboratorySouthern Illinois 2 UniversityCarbondaleUSA

Personalised recommendations