ORCID Profile
0000-0003-1857-4777
Current Organisation
Murdoch University
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: CSIRO Publishing
Date: 10-03-2021
DOI: 10.1071/WR20020
Abstract: Abstract Context Determining the most efficient detection method for a target species is key for successful wildlife monitoring and management. Driven transects and sign surveys are commonly used to monitor populations of the endangered numbat (Myrmecobius fasciatus). Camera trapping is being explored as a new method. These methods were unevaluated for efficacy and cost for numbat detection. Aims To compare efficacy and costing of driven transects, sign surveys and camera trapping for detecting numbats in the Upper Warren region, Western Australia. Methods Seven repeat sign surveys and driven transects, as well as 4 months of camera trapping, were conducted concurrently at 50 sites along three transects. Numbat detection rates and costing of the three techniques were compared, and detection probabilities were compared between sign surveys and camera trapping. Key results Numbat signs were detected during 88 surveys at 39 sites, exceeding camera trapping (26 detections at 13 sites) and driven transects (seven detections near five sites). The estimated probability for detecting a numbat or a sign thereof (at a site where numbats were present) ranged from 0.21 to 0.35 for a sign survey, and 0.02 to 0.06 for 7 days of camera trapping. Total survey costs were lowest for driven transects, followed by camera trapping and sign surveys. When expressed as cost per numbat detection, sign surveys were cheapest. Conclusions Comparative studies of survey methods are essential for optimal, cost-effective wildlife monitoring. Sign surveys were more successful and cost effective than camera trapping or driven transects for detecting numbats in the Upper Warren region. Together with occupancy modelling, sign surveys are appropriate to investigate changes in occupancy rates over time, which could serve as a metric for long-term numbat monitoring. Implications There is no ‘best’ method for wildlife surveys. Case-specific comparison of animal detection methods is recommended to ensure optimal methods. For the numbat population in the Upper Warren region, further studies are needed to improve numbat detection rates from camera trapping, and to test sign surveys in autumn (March to May), when surviving juvenile numbats have established their own territory and assumptions regarding population closure are less likely to be violated.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 11-2013
Publisher: CSIRO Publishing
Date: 13-07-2020
DOI: 10.1071/AM20020
Abstract: Camera traps are widely used to collect data for wildlife management, but species-specific testing is crucial. We conducted three trials to optimise camera traps for detecting numbats (Myrmecobius fasciatus), a 500–700-g mammal. We compared detection rates from (1) Reconyx PC900 camera traps installed at heights ranging from 10–45 cm, and (2) Reconyx PC900, Swift 3C standard and wide-angle camera traps with differing detection zone widths. Finally, we compared elevated, downward-angled time-lapse cameras installed at heights ranging from 1–2 m to obtain dorsal images for in idual numbat identification. Camera traps set at 25 cm had the highest detection rates but missed 40% of known events. During model comparison, Swift 3C wide-angle camera traps recorded 89%, Swift 3C standard 51%, and Reconyx PC900 37% of known events. The number of suitable images from elevated, downward-angled cameras, depicting dorsal fur patterns, increased with increasing camera height. The use of well regarded camera trap brands and generic recommendations for set-up techniques cannot replace rigorous, species-specific testing. For numbat detection, we recommend the Swift 3C wide-angle model installed at 25-cm height. For in idual numbat identification, elevated, downward-angled time-lapse cameras were useful however, more research is needed to optimise this technique.
Publisher: CSIRO Publishing
Date: 25-02-2021
DOI: 10.1071/PC20076
Abstract: When using camera traps for wildlife studies, determining suitable camera models and deployment methods is essential for achieving study objectives. We aimed to determine if camera trap performance can be increased by (1) using cameras with wider detection angles, and (2) by periodically repositioning cameras within sites. We compared three camera trap groups: stationary Reconyx PC900/HC600 (40° detection angle), and paired, periodically-repositioned Reconyx PC900/HC600 and Swift 3C wide-angle camera traps (110° detection angle). Cameras operated simultaneously at 17 sites over 9 weeks within the Upper Warren region, Western Australia. Swift cameras had significantly higher detection rates, leading to better performance, especially for species kg and kg bodyweight. Reconyx cameras missed 54% of known events, with most being animals that moved within the cameras’ detection zones. Stationary and periodically-repositioned Reconyx camera traps performed similarly, although there were notable differences for some species. The better performance of Swift 3C wide-angle camera traps makes them more useful for community-level and species-level studies. The increased sensitivity of the Swift’s passive infrared sensor along with the wider detection zone played an important role in its success. When choosing camera trap models, detection angle and sensor sensitivity should be considered to produce reliable study results. Periodically repositioning cameras within sites is a technique that warrants further investigation as it may reduce camera placement bias, animal avoidance of camera traps, and increase spatial/habitat information when a limited number of cameras are deployed.
No related grants have been discovered for Anke Seidlitz.