Volunteer-run cameras as distributed sensors for macrosystem mammal research

Abstract

Context

Variation in the abundance of animals affects a broad range of ecosystem processes. However, patterns of abundance for large mammals, and the effects of human disturbances on them are not well understood because we lack data at the appropriate scales. We created eMammal to effectively camera-trap at landscape scale. Camera traps detect animals with infrared sensors that trigger the camera to take a photo, a sequence of photos, or a video clip. Through photography, camera traps create records of wildlife from known locations and dates, and can be set in arrays to quantify animal distribution across a landscape. This allows linkage to other distributed networks of ecological data.

Objectives

Through the eMammal program, we demonstrate that volunteer-based camera trapping can meet landscape scale spatial data needs, while also engaging the public in nature and science. We assert that camera surveys can be effectively scaled to a macrosystem level through citizen science, but only after solving challenges of data and volunteer management.

Method

We present study design and technology solutions for landscape scale camera trapping to effectively recruit, train and retain volunteers while providing efficient data workflows and quality control.

Results

Our initial work with > 400 volunteers across six contiguous U.S. states has proven that citizen scientists can deploy these camera traps properly (94 % of volunteer deployments correct) and tag the photos accurately for most species (67–100 %). Using these tools we processed 2.6 million images over a 2 year period. The eMammal cyberinfrastructure made it possible to process far more data than any participating researcher had previously achieved. The core components include an upload application using a standard metadata format, an expert review tool to ensure data quality, and a curated data repository.

Conclusion

Macrosystem scale monitoring of wildlife by volunteer-run camera traps can produce the data needed to address questions concerning broadly distributed mammals, and also help to raise public awareness on the science of conservation. This scale of data will allow for linkage of large mammals to ecosystem processes now measured through national programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Bonter DN, Cooper CB (2012) Data validation in citizen science: a case study from project FeederWatch. Front Ecol Environ 10:305–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brossard D, Lewenstein B, Bonney R (2005) Scientific knowledge and attitude change: the impact of a citizen science project. Int J Sci Educ 27:1099–1121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Butcher GS, Niven DK (2007) Combining data from the christmas bird count and the breeding bird survey to determine the continental status and trends of North America birds. National Audubon Society, Ivyland

    Google Scholar 

  4. Carbone C, Christie S, Conforti K, Coulson T, Franklin N, Ginsberg JR, Griffiths M, Holden J, Kawanishi K, Kinnaird M, Laidlaw R, Lynam A, Macdonald DW, Martyr D, McDougal C, Nath L, O'Brien T, Seidensticker J, Smith DJL, Sunquist M, Tilson R, Wan Shahruddin WN (2001) The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals. Anim Conserv 4:75–79

  5. Chang C-C, Lin C-J (2011) LIBSVM: a library for support vector machines. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol 2(3):27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cohn JP (2008) Citizen science: can volunteers do real research? Bioscience 58:192–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Conway CJ (2011) Standardized North American marsh bird monitoring protocol. Waterbirds 34:319–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Crall AW, Newman GJ, Jarnevich CS, Stohlgren TJ, Waller DM, Graham J (2011) Assessing citizen science data quality: an invasive species case study. Conserv Lett 4:433–442

  9. Delaney DG, Sperling CD, Adams CS, Leung B (2007) Marine invasive species: validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks. Biol Invasions 10:117–128

  10. Dickinson JL, Zuckerberg B, Bonter DN (2010) Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:149–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dickinson JL, Shirk J, Bonter D, Bonney R, Crain RL, Martin J, Philips T, Purcell K (2012) The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Front Ecol Environ 10:291–297

  12. Droege S (2007) Just because you paid them doesn’t mean their data are better. In: Proceedings, citizen science toolkit conference. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. www.birds.cornell.edu/citscitoolkit/conference/proceeding-pdfs

  13. Dunn EH, Francis CM, Blancher PJ, Drennan SR, Howe MA, Lepage D, Robbins CS, Rosenberg KV, Sauer JR, Smith KG (2005) Enhancing the scientific value of the christmas bird count. Auk 122:338–346

  14. Elith J, Leathwick JR (2009) Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:677–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fore LS, Paulsen K, O’Laughlin K (2001) Assessing the performance of volunteers in monitoring streams. Freshw Biol 46:109–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fraser LH, Henry HAL, Carlyle CN, White SR, Beierkuhnlein C, Cahill JF Jr, Casper BB, Cleland E, Collins SL, Dukes JS, Knapp AK, Lind E, Long R, Luo Y, Reich PB, Smith MD, Sternberg M, Turkington R (2013) Coordinated distributed experiments: an emerging tool for testing global hypotheses in ecology and environmental science. Front Ecol Environ 11:147–155

  17. Galloway AWE, Tudor MT, Haegan WMV (2006) The reliability of citizen science: a case study of oregon white oak stand surveys. Wildl Soc Bull 34:1425–1429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gompper ME, Kays RW, Ray JC, Lapoint SD, Bogan DA, Cryan JR (2006) A comparison of non-invasive techniques to survey carnivore communities in Northeastern North America. Wildl Soc Bull 34:1142–1151

  19. Goyette N, Jodoin PM, Porikli F, Konrad J, Ishwar P (2012) Changedetection.net: A new change detection benchmark dataset. In: Proceedings of the IEEE workshop on change detection (CDW12) at CVPR12, 2012

  20. Gregory RD, Strien AV (2010) Wild bird indicators: using composite population trends of birds as measures of environmental health. Ornith Sci 9:3–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hochachka WM, Fink D, Hutchinson RA, Sheldon D, Wong WK, Kelling S (2012) Data-intensive science applied to broad-scale citizen science. Trends Ecol Evol 27:130–137

  22. Iverson LR, Prasad AM, Matthews SN, Peters M (2011) Lesson learned while integrating habitat, dispersal, disturbance, life-history traits into species habitat models under climate change. Ecosystems 14:1005–1020

  23. Karanth KU, Nichols JD (1998) Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79:2852–2862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kays R, Tilak S, Kranstauber B, Jansen PA, Carbone C, Rowcliffe MJ, Fountain T, Eggert J, He Z (2011) Monitoring wild animal communities with arrays of motion sensitive camera traps. Intern J Res Rev Wireless Sensor Networks 1:19–29

  25. Kays R, Costello R, Forrester T, Baker MC, Parsons AW, Kalies EL, Hess G, Millspaugh JJ, McShea W (2015) Cats are rare where coyotes roam. J Mammal xx(x):1–7. doi:10.1093/jmammal/gyv100

  26. Kinnaird MF, O’Brien TG (2012) Effects of private-land use, livestock management, and human tolerance on diversity, distribution, and abundance of large African mammals. Conserv Biol 26:1026–1039

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Li S, McShea WJ, Wang D, Lu Z, Gu X (2012) Gauging the impact of management expertise on the distribution of large mammals across protected areas. Div Distrib 18:1166–1176

  28. Lindén H, Helle E, Helle P, Wikman M (1996) Wildlife triangle scheme in Finland: methods and aims for monitoring wildlife populations. Finn Game Res 49:4–11

  29. Link WA, Sauer JR (1998) Estimating population change from count data: application to the North American Breeding Bird Survey. Ecol Appl 8:258–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Loss SR, Loss SS, Will T, Marra PP (2015) Linking place-based citizen science with large-scale conservation research: a case study of bird-building collisions and the role of professional scientists. Biol Conserv 184:439–445

  31. Lynam AJ, Jenks KE, Tantipisanuh N, Chutipong W, Ngoprasert D, Gale GA, Steinmetz R, Sukmasuang R, Bhumpakphan N, Grassman LI Jr, Cutter P, Kitamura S, Reed DH, Baker MC, McShea W, Songsasen N, Leimgruber P (2013) Terrestrial activity patterns of wild cats from camera-trapping. Raffl Bull Zool 61:407–415

  32. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Hines JE, Knutson MG, Franklin AB (2003) Estimating site occupancy, colonization, and local extinction when a species is detected imperfectly. Ecology 84:2200–2207

  33. McGill BJ (2010) A test of the unified neural theory of biodiversity. Nature 422:881–885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. McShea WJ (2014) What are the roles for species distribution models in conservation planning? Environ Conserv 41:93–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mladenoff DJ, Sickley TA (1998) Assessing potential gray wolf restoration in the northeastern United States: a spatial prediction of favorable habitat and potential population levels. J Wildl Manag 62:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Moyer-Horner L, Smith MM, Belt J (2012) Citizen science and observer variability during American pika surveys. J Wildl Manag 76:1472–1479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Nagendra H, Lucas R, Honrado JP, Jongman RH, Tarantino C, Adamo M, Mairota P (2013) Remote sensing for conservation monitoring: assessing protected areas, habitat extent, habitat condition, species diversity, and threats. Ecol Indic 33:45–59

  38. Newman C, Beusching CD, Macdonald DW (2003) Validating mammal monitoring methods and assessing the performance of volunteers in wildlife conservation-“Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodies?”. Biol Conserv 113:189–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. North American Bird Conservation Initiative, and US Committee (2014) The State of the Birds 2014 Report. US Department of Interior, Washington, DC 16 pages

  40. O’Brien TG, Baillie JEM, Krueger L, Cuke M (2010) The Wildlife Picture Index: monitoring top trophic levels. Anim Conserv 13:335–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. O’Connell AF Jr, Talancy NW, Bailey LL, Sauer JR, Cook R, Gilbert AT (2006) Estimating site occupancy and detection probability parameters for meso-and large mammals in a coastal ecosystem. J Wildl Manag 70:1625–1633

  42. Phillips SJ, Dudík M (2008) Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31:161–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ramsey DSL, Caley PA, Robley A (2015) Estimating population density from presence-absence data using a spatially explicit model. J Wildl Manag 79(3):491–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ren X, Han T, He Z (2013) Ensemble video object cuts in highly dynamic scenes. In: International conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR), Portland, June 2013

  45. Ripple WJ, Estes JA, Beschta RL, Wilmers CC, Ritchie EG, Hebblewhite M, Berger J, Elmhagen B, Letnic M, Nelson MP, Schmitz OJ, Smith DW, Wallach AD, Wirsing AJ (2014) Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science. doi:10.1126/science.1241484

  46. Rowcliffe MJ, Carbone C, Jansen PA, Kays R, Kranstauber B (2011) Quantifying the sensitivity of camera traps using an adapted distance sampling approach. Meth Ecol Evol 2:467–476

  47. Sauer JR, Link WA, Fallon JE, Pardieck KL, Ziolkowski DJ Jr (2013) The North American Breeding Bird Survey 1966–2011: summary analysis and species accounts. N Am Fauna 79(79):1–32

  48. Schimel D, Keller M (2015) Big questions, big science: meeting the challenges of global ecology. Oecologia 177:925–934

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Schwartz MD, Betancourt JL, Weltzin JF (2012) From Caprio’s lilacs to the USA National Phenology Network. Front Ecol Environ 10:324–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Sullivan BL, Wood CL, Iliff MJ, Bonney RE, Fink D, Kelling S (2009) eBird: a citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences. Biol Conserv 142:2282–2292

  51. Swenson JE, Sandegren F, Bjärvall A, Söderberg A, Wabakken P, Franzén R (1994) Size, trend, distribution and conservation of the brown bear Ursus arctos population in Sweden. Biol Conserv 70:9–17

  52. Vermeulen C, Lejeune P, Lisein J, Sawadogo P, Bouché P (2013) Unmanned aerial survey of elephants. PLoS ONE 8(2):e54700

  53. Wilson GJ, Delahay RJ (2001) A review of methods to estimate the abundance of terrestrial carnivores using field signs and observation. Wildl Res 28:151–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Yang J, Yu K, Gong Y, Huang T (2009) Linear spatial pyramid matching using sparse coding for image classification. In: International conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR)

  55. Yu X, Wang J, Kays R, Jansen PA, Wang T, Huang T (2013) Automated identification of animal species in camera trap images. EURASIP J Image Video Proc 2013:52

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William J. McShea.

Additional information

Special issue: Macrosystems ecology: Novel methods and new understanding of multi-scale patterns and processes.

Guest Editors: S. Fei, Q. Guo, and K. Potter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McShea, W.J., Forrester, T., Costello, R. et al. Volunteer-run cameras as distributed sensors for macrosystem mammal research. Landscape Ecol 31, 55–66 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0262-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Camera traps
  • Cyberinfrastructure
  • Standard metadata
  • Citizen science
  • eMammal
  • Macrosystem