Camera-traps are a cost-effective method for surveying terrestrial squamates: A comparison with artificial refuges and pitfall traps


Autoři: Dustin J. Welbourne aff001;  Andrew W. Claridge aff002;  David J. Paull aff002;  Frederick Ford aff005
Působiště autorů: Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America aff001;  School of Science, University of New South Wales, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia aff002;  NSW Department of Primary Industries, Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, Queanbeyan, New South Wales, Australia aff003;  Office of Environment and Heritage, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Nature Conservation Section, Queanbeyan, New South Wales, Australia aff004;  Estate and Infrastructure Group, Department of Defence, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia aff005
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226913

Souhrn

Introduction

Fundamental data on the distributions, diversity, and threat status of terrestrial snakes and lizards (hereafter squamates) is limited. This is due to the cryptic nature of species in this faunal group, and to limitations in the effectiveness of the survey methods used to detect these species. Camera-traps are a useful tool for detecting numerous vertebrate species, yet their use for detecting squamates has been limited. Here, we apply recent methodological advancements in camera-trapping and assessed the utility of camera-traps for inventorying a squamate assemblage by comparing camera-trapping survey results with two widely used labour-intensive methods: artificial refuges and pitfall traps.

Methods

We conducted a 74-day survey using camera-traps and, concurrently, four by four-day surveys using labour-intensive methods. Given the duration and three detection methods, we compared seven variants of survey protocol, including using each method alone or all methods simultaneously. We compared both the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of each survey protocol by estimating the number of species detected at the transect level, and by calculating the costs of conducting those surveys.

Results

We found the camera-trapping survey was most cost-effective, costing 687 AUD (CI 534–912) per squamate species detected, compared with the 2975 AUD (CI 2103–4486) per squamate species detected with the labour-intensive methods. Using all methods together was less cost-effective than using camera-traps alone. Additionally, there was a 99% probability that camera-traps would detect more species per transect than the labour-intensive methods examined.

Discussion & conclusion

By focusing the analysis at the level of the survey, rather than the level of the device, camera-traps are both a more effective and cost-effective technique for surveying terrestrial squamates. Where circumstances are appropriate, those wildlife researchers and managers currently using camera-traps for non-squamate surveys, can adopt the methods presented to incorporate squamate surveys with little upfront cost. Additionally, researchers currently using traditional techniques can be confident that switching to camera-traps will likely yield improved results. Still, camera-traps are not a panacea and careful consideration into the benefits and usefulness of these techniques in individual circumstances is required.

Klíčová slova:

Cost-effectiveness analysis – Equipment – Lizards – Snakes – Species diversity – Squamates – Surveys – Wildlife


Zdroje

1. Uetz P. Species numbers (as of March 2018) http://www.reptile-database.org: The Reptile Database; 2018 [http://www.reptile-database.org/db-info/SpeciesStat.html.

2. IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species iucnredlist.org: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources; 2018 [http://cmsdocs.s3.amazonaws.com/summarystats/2017-3_Summary_Stats_Page_Documents/2017_3_RL_Stats_Table_1.pdf.

3. Keinath DA, Doak DF, Hodges KE, Prugh LR, Fagan W, Sekercioglu CH, et al. A global analysis of traits preedicting speceis sensitivity to habitat fragmentation. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 2017;26(1):115–27.

4. Meek P, Fleming P, Ballard G, Banks P, Claridge A, Sanderson J, et al., editors. Camera Trapping Wildlife Management and Research. Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO Publishing; 2014.

5. Welbourne DJ, Paull DJ, Claridge AW, Ford F. A frontier in the use of camera traps: Surveying terrestrial squamate assemblages. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation. 2017;3(3):133–45.

6. Ariefiandy A, Purwandana D, Seno A, Ciofi C, Jessop TS. Can camera traps monitor Komodo dragons a large ectothermic predator? Plos One. 2013;8(3):e58800. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058800 23527027

7. Welbourne D. A method for surveying diurnal terrestrial reptiles with passive infrared automatically triggered cameras. Herpetological Review. 2013;44(2):247–50.

8. Welbourne DJ, MacGregor C, Paull D, Lindenmayer DB. The effectiveness and cost of camera traps for surveying small reptiles and critical weight range mammals: a comparison with labour-intensive complementary methods. Wildlife Research. 2015;42(5):414–25.

9. Richardson E, Nimmo DG, Avitable S, Tworkowski L, Watson SJ, Welbourne D, et al. Camera traps and pitfalls: An evaluation of two methods for surveying reptiles in a semiarid ecosystem. Wildlife Research. 2018;44(8):637–47.

10. Adams CS, Ryberg WA, Hibbitts TJ, Pierce BL, Pierce JB, Rudolph DC. Evaluating effectiveness and cost of time-lapse triggered camera trapping techniques to detect terrestrial squamate diversity. Herpetological Review. 2017;48(1):44–8.

11. Rodda GH, Guyer C. Selecting a technique. In Foster M.S. (Ed.), Standard methods for inventory and monitoring. In: McDiarmid RW, Foster MS, Guyer C, Gibbons JW, Chernoff N, editors. Reptile Biodiversity: Standard Methods for Inventory and Monitoring. Berkeley, California, USA: University of California Press, Ltd.; 2012. p. 205–9.

12. Sung YH, Karraker NE, Hau BCH. Evaluation of the effectiveness of three survey methods for sampling terrestrial herpetofauna in south China. Herpetological Conservation and Biology. 2011;6(3):479–89.

13. Garden JG, McAlpine CA, Possingham HP, Jones DN. Using multiple survey methods to detect terrestrial reptiles and mammals: What are the most successful and cost-efficient combinations? Wildlife Research. 2007;34(3):218–27.

14. Godley JS. Sampling with artificial cover. In Foster M.S. (Ed.), Standard methods for inventory and monitoring In: McDiarmid RW, Foster MS, Guyer C, Gibbons JW, Chernoff N, editors. Reptile Biodiversity: Standard Methods for Inventory and Monitoring. Berkeley, California, USA: University of California Press, Ltd.; 2012. p. 249–55.

15. Fisher RN, Rochester CJ. Pitfall-trap surveys. In Foster M.S. (Ed.), Standard methods for inventory and monitoring. In: McDiarmid RW, Foster MS, Guyer C, Gibbons JW, Chernoff N, editors. Reptile Biodiversity: Standard Methods for Inventory and Monitoring. Berkeley, California, USA: University of California Press, Ltd.; 2012. p. 234–49.

16. Lettink M, Cree A. Relative use of three types of artificial retreats by terrestrial lizards in grazed coastal shrubland, New Zealand. Applied Herpetology. 2007;4(3):227–43.

17. Welbourne D. On Camera-trapping Terrestrial Squamates: Univeristy of New South Wales; 2016.

18. Reconyx. Hyperfire High Performance Cameras Instruction Manual. Wisconsin, USA: Reconyx; 2010. 31 p.

19. Welbourne DJ, Claridge AW, Paull DJ, Ford F. Improving Terrestrial Squamate Surveys with Camera-Trap Programming and Hardware Modifications. Animals-Basel. 2019;9(6).

20. Wilson S, Swan G. Complete Guide to Reptiles of Australia. 3rd ed. Sydney, Australia: New Holland Publishers; 2010. 558 p.

21. Daly HE, Farley J. Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications. Washington DC, USA: Island Press; 2004.

22. Klein MW. Mathematical Methods for Economics. Second ed. Boston, USA: Addison Wesley; 2002.

23. Thrifty Car Rentals. Car Hire: Thrifty Car Rentals: Australia; 2018 [http://www.thrifty.com.au.

24. RACQ. Car running costs: RACQ: Australia; 2014 [http://www.racq.com.au/cars-and-driving/cars/owning-and-maintaining-a-car/car-running-costs.

25. University of New South Wales. Human Resources General Staff (Casual) Sydney: University of New South Wales; 2018 [https://www.hr.unsw.edu.au/services/salaries/casgnsal.html.

26. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 3.4.2 ed. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2017.

27. Thomas N. R2OpenBUGS. R CRAN: R Core Team; 2015.

28. Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N, Lunn D. OpenBUGS User Manual. 3.2.3 ed. Cambridge, UK: MRC Biostatistics Unit; 2014.

29. Plummer M. coda. R CRAN: R Core Team; 2015.

30. Yau C. R Tutorial with Bayesian Statistics using OpenBUGS. California, United States of America: Amazon Kindle; 2015.

31. Molyneux J, Pavey CR, James AI, Carthew SM. The efficacy of monitoring techniques for detecting small mammals and reptiles in arid environments. Wildlife Research. 2017;44(7):534–45.

32. Meek PD, Ballard GA, Falzon G. The higher you go the less you will know: Placing camera traps high to avoid theft will affect detection. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation. 2016;2(4):204–11.

33. Clarin BM, Bitzilekis E, Siemers BM, Goerlitz HR. Personal messages reduce vandalism and theft of unattended scientific equipment. Methods Ecol Evol. 2014;5(2):125–31. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12132 25866614

34. Fiehler CM, Cypher BL, Bremner-Harrison S, Pounds D. A theft-resistant adjustable security box for digital cameras. J Wildlife Manage. 2007;71(6):2077–80.

35. Meek PD, Ballard AG, Fleming PJS. A permanent security post for camera trapping. Australian Mammalogy. 2012;35(1):123–7.

36. Price-Rees SJ, Lindstrom T, Brown GP, Shine R. The effects of weather conditions on dispersal behaviour of free-ranging lizards (Tiliqua, Scincidae) in tropical Australia. Funct Ecol. 2014;28(2):440–9.

37. Read JL, Moseby KE. Factors affecting pitfall capture rates of small ground vertebrates in arid South Australia. I. The influence of weather and moon phase on capture rates of reptiles. Wildlife Research. 2001;28(1):53–60.

38. Cogger HG. Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia. 7th ed. Collingwood, VIC, Australia: CSIRO Publishing; 2014. 1033 p.

39. Llewelyn J, Shine R, Webb JK. Thermal regimes and diel activity patterns of four species of small elapid snakes from south-eastern Australia. Aust J Zool. 2005;53(1):1–8.

40. Shine R. Activity patterns in Australian elapid snakes (Squamata, Serpentes, Elapidae). Herpetologica. 1979;35(1):1–11.

41. Welbourne DJ, Claridge AW, Paull DJ, Lambert A. How do passive infrared triggered camera traps operate and why does it matter? Breaking down common misconceptions. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation. 2016;2(2):77–83.

42. Webb GA. Effectiveness of pitfall/drift-fence systems for sampling small ground-dwelling lizards and frogs in southeastern Australian forests. Australian Zoologist. 1999;31(1):118–26.

43. Ellis M. Impacts of pit size, drift fence material and fence configuration on capture rates of small reptiles and mammals in the New South Wales rangelands. Australian Zoologist. 2013;36(4):404–12.

44. Thompson SA, Thompson GG, Withers PC. Influence of pit-trap type on the interpretation of fauna diversity. Wildlife Research. 2005;32(2):131–7.

45. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Royle JA, Pollock KH, Bailey LL, Hines JE. Occupancy Estimation and Modeling Inferring Patterns and Dynamics of Species Occurence. California, USA: Academic Press; 2006.

46. Williams BK, Nichols JD, Conroy MJ. Analysis and Management of Animal Populations. London, UK: Academic Press; 2002.

47. Edwards KE, Jones JC. Trapping efficiency and associated mortality of incidentally captured small mammals during herpetofaunal surveys of temporary wetlands. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 2014;38(3):530–5.

48. Enge KM. The pitfalls of pitfall traps. J Herpetol. 2001;35(3):467–78.

49. Hobbs TJ, James CD. Influence of shade covers on pitfall trap temperatures and capture success of reptiles and small mammals in arid Australia. Wildlife Research. 1999;26(3):341–9.

50. Karraker NE. String theory: Reducing mortality of mammals in pitfall traps. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 2001;29(4):1158–62.

51. Pearce JL, Schuurman D, Barber KN, Larrivee M, Venier LA, McKee J, et al. Pitfall trap designs to maximize invertebrate captures and minimize captures of nontarget vertebrates. Can Entomol. 2005;137(2):233–50.

52. Read JL, Pedler RD, Kearney MR. Too much hot air? Informing ethical trapping in hot, dry environments. Wildlife Research. 2018;45(1):16–30.

53. Burghardt GM. Ethical considerations in working with reptiles. In Foster M.S. (Ed.), Dealing with live reptiles. In: McDiarmid RW, Foster MS, Guyer C, Gibbons JW, Chernoff N, editors. Reptile Biodiversity: Standard Methods for Inventory and Monitoring. Berkeley, California, USA: University of California Press, Ltd.; 2012. p. 127–30.

54. Putman R. Ethical considerations and animal welfare in ecological field studies. Biodivers Conserv. 1995;4(8):903–15.


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2020 Číslo 1