COS 62-5
Are camera-traps the new panacea? Surveying terrestrial mammals and reptiles with cameras
Ascertaining mammal and reptile diversity at a site has traditionally required researchers to employ a variety of data collection techniques due to vast differences in morphology and behaviour within and between taxonomic groups. Developing new methods, or improving the effectiveness of existing methods, has preoccupied ecologists, as evinced by the numerous studies comparing survey techniques. In recent years, camera-traps have been shown to be more effective at detecting small mammals than cage traps or hair tunnels in sub-tropical and temperate forests and woodlands. Furthermore, methods of using camera-traps to survey terrestrial Squamata have recently been developed. Thus, in this paper a camera-trapping protocol is compared against live-trapping for mammals and artificial refuges for reptiles, currently employed in a long-term monitoring program.
Two surveys were conducted simultaneously on 19 heath-land transects on Beecroft Peninsula, southeastern Australia. Camera-trapping was conducted over 30 days during January and February 2013, while cage and Elliott trapping for mammals and artificial refuge surveys using roof tiles, iron sheets, and fence posts for reptiles occurred over four days within the period. Fauna were classified to species level where possible, otherwise genus, and taxonomic inventory, number of detections, and unique taxa detected were compared for each method.
Results/Conclusions
The two survey protocols detected a total of ten mammal and ten squamate species. Five species of mammal and three species of Squamata were not detected using live-traps and artificial refuges, while only one squamate was not detected with camera-traps. A significantly higher proportion of both mammal and reptile species were detected at each transect with camera-traps, and camera-traps resulted in significantly more detection events of mammal species on transects where particular species were detected by both protocols. Still, camera-traps have their limitations. Small skinks were detected significantly more with artificial refuges compared with camera-traps, with two species, garden skinks (Lampropholis delicata) and grass skinks (Lampropholis guichenoti), being identified to genus level with camera-traps due to photographic resolution.
As these data show, camera-traps can be used to survey a terrestrial vertebrate assemblage much more effectively than traditional techniques in heath environments. Still, depending on the research question, target taxa, and habitat type camera-traps are not a data collection panacea. While this study adds to the growing work assessing camera-traps for mammal research, it is the first attempt at evaluating camera-traps as a survey tool for terrestrial squamates.