Table 2 - available via license: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Content may be subject to copyright.
The approximate hearing ranges of 24 animals using data extracted from (https://www.lsu.edu/deafness/HearingRange.html) and additional data from papers cited in this study.
Source publication
Camera traps are electrical instruments that emit sounds and light. In recent decades they have become a tool of choice in wildlife research and monitoring. The variability between camera trap models and the methods used are considerable, and little is known about how animals respond to camera trap emissions. It has been reported that some animals...
Similar publications
Restricted human activity during the COVID-19 pandemic raised global attention to the presence of wildlife in cities. Here, we analyzed iNaturalist observations of prominent wildlife species around North-American urban centers, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. We suggest that the popular notion of ‘wildlife reclaiming cities’ may h...
Citations
... Camera traps offer advantages over other methods, as demonstrated by their success in various studies, including recording an undescribed species of Sumatran striped rabbit (Nesolagus timminsi; Surridge et al. 1999), the first photo record of the Pallas's cat (Otocolobus manual) in Bhutan and Nepal (Thinley 2013, and the highest elevation record (4,201 m a.s.l.) for the tiger (Panthera tigris). Camera trapping's cost-efficiency and less intrusive nature make it a valuable tool in wildlife conservation (Rovero and Marshall 2009, De Bondi et al. 2010, Rovero et al. 2013, Meek et al. 2014. ...
Behavior of wild red panda (Ailurus fulgens) is not well‐studied, as it is difficult to locate and track individuals. Previous studies of red panda behavior have involved direct observations, finding fecal scats, and GPS collar deployment. We assessed the value of using camera traps to monitor wild red panda, evaluating the utility of placing cameras on the ground or in trees. Our study used data from 19 pairs of camera traps, set in eastern Nepal for at least a month during 2018, to monitor and compare their effectiveness for capturing wild red panda behavior at ground level and in the tree canopy. Arboreal camera traps were 8 times more effective than ground‐based cameras at capturing red pandas and their behavior in terms of frequency. Arboreal camera traps also captured images with enough clarity to distinguish facial markings between individuals and provide potential for future mark‐recapture approaches. Despite the extra set‐up difficulties and higher rate of misfires, researchers should place camera traps in tree canopies at around 5 m height for specific red panda monitoring events, including presence, activity patterns, behavior, and possible predator presence.
... These effects may disrupt nesting, attract or repel predators, and influence predator activity patterns (Whelan et al. 1994;Picman and Schriml 1994;Cutler and Swann 1999). Many mammals can detect, hear, and see the presence, sound, and illumination of a camera (Meek et al. 2014), which influences animal behaviour (Cutler and Swann 1999). ...
Photographing wild animals in their native habitat necessitates careful observation, patience, persistence, practice, time, and, most importantly, the right equipment. Photography is an integral part of many research projects worldwide, as well as a significant component of global ecotourism, providing economic hope for many of the world’s threatened natural areas through community-based conservation. This activity is at a higher pace nowadays due to increased environmental awareness, birding activities, and the advancement of digital technology. In addition to its widespread uses, photography also has a negative impact on ecosystems and wildlife, but the majority of available literature is currently descriptive, anecdotal, and biased towards its utility. In this review, 11 types of stimuli related to four major sources, including photographers, their vehicles, cameras, and some unethical photographic activities, were identified as detrimental to wildlife and their habitats. The consequences ranged from animal disturbance to species decline. Hence, in order to achieve proper conservation outcomes, these negative effects need to be reduced. This review summarises and discusses collected data to assist workers in planning to develop technologies in response to these effects, which improves its value both in research and conservation.
... We caution against using the results of one or more camera trap studies using different makes and models of cameras to inform experimental design or policy interventions. Ahumada et al. 2020;Kays et al. 2020;Meek et al. 2014;Willi et al. 2019;Wysong et al. 2022). ...
... Given the rapid progress and improvement in camera trap design and function, a model that performs at what is considered a satisfactory standard at the time of purchase, may quickly perform at a standard below that of contemporary models. Furthermore, some older models of camera trap (> 10 years old) may incur bias in image captures when visible infrared flashes, or 'glow', disturb animals such as foxes (Meek et al. 2014), which may also bias image captures. Indeed, it is often neophobic, reclusive animals that are the target of camera trap surveys in research and management (e.g., Harley and Eyre 2024). ...
... We expected there to be no significant differences in the capture rate of large, relatively slow-moving animals for example, deer, as in these cases a rapid trigger speed or wide detection zone would not be a key factor in the probability of detection (Hughson et al. 2010;Meek et al. 2014;Scheibe et al. 2008). However, control cameras captured 262% and 1223% more individual deer than did the budget and vintage models respectively, which is a greater difference demonstrated between models than that of any published camera trap comparison study. ...
Camera trapping for detecting wildlife is increasingly used as a primary method of non‐invasive wildlife monitoring. Yet understanding among researchers and conservationists on how camera trap make, and model affect detection rates is limited. Published studies often fail to make clear why a given camera trap model was chosen or what specifications or parameters were used to capture target species within a given study area, prohibiting replicability. Here we present a comparison of predator and herbivore detection efficacy using three makes and models of camera trap at differing price ranges, year of release (hereafter vintages) and specifications. We used a passive monitoring survey design at six sites in open field conditions across the Flow Country, Northern Scotland. Detection efficacy varied substantially between grades and vintages of camera traps and depended on species captured. Older models of camera with lower trigger speed and night vision range performed particularly poorly for nocturnal predatory mammal detection. This has implications for how researchers, conservationists, developers and other users approach experimental design and analyses, but also on the conclusions that may be drawn from studies. We caution against using the results of one or more camera trap studies using different makes and models of cameras to inform experimental design or policy interventions.
... We were able to take advantage of local access to trail cameras for this study. Although wildlife can see and hear camera traps (Meek et al. 2014), disturbance is less likely than when researchers are present in the field to directly observe animals (Bridges et al. 2004). Despite high initial costs, camera trapping is cost-effective and efficient (Bowler et al. 2017) for monitoring cryptic species compared with traditional ground-based survey methods. ...
The Himalayas, including Nepal, are a biodiversity hotspot. However, records on mammalian richness remain incomplete due to resource limitations, inadequate training, and the remote location of study areas. The unprotected forest area of the Panchthar-Ilam-Taplejung region in eastern Nepal is a vital corridor connecting India and Nepal. Using a structured methodology we aimed to increase our knowledge of mammalian diversity in this area. Camera traps were deployed throughout the Panchthar-Ilam-Taplejung area in 53 locations in winter and 54 in spring, accumulating 3014 camera trap days and generating 93,336 images, with a positive trigger rate of 29.8%. The survey revealed 17 species of medium to large-sized mammals and an additional six species of smaller unidentified mammals, including two melanic variations and two previously undocumented species. Activity patterns were calculated for species with more than five image records in both seasons. The findings contribute essential information about the Kangchenjunga Landscape, which can be used to further conservation efforts in this critical ecosystem corridor.
... If so, S. douglasi individuals may have chosen to avoid the areas that showed signs of disturbance, concentrated animal presence and/or potential greater exposure to aerial predators (e.g., owls). A second scenario is that the animals were more easily startled by the flash of the cameras (Meek et al. 2014). This is tentatively supported by the fact that in each of the three camera trap detections of S. douglasi, there was only 2-5 images in succession of an individual, whereas other sympatric small mammal species, such as R. villosissimus or Planigale sp., in general stayed under the cameras longer, for up to 10 images across several seconds, and appeared to have a more in-depth inspection of the bait container. ...
The Julia Creek dunnart, Sminthopsis douglasi, is a small, threatened carnivorous marsupial occurring in scattered populations in the grasslands of central and northwestern Queensland, Australia. The distribution of the species is largely unknown due to sporadic survey efforts and its historically low detection using traditional live trapping methods. There is an urgent need to determine the best methods of detection to optimise survey methodologies and more effectively manage species conservation efforts. In this study, we compared the effectiveness of live (Elliott) traps, baited white flash camera traps and thermal imagery binocular surveying for detecting S. douglasi. We deployed 40 white flash camera traps at two sites in Bladensburg National Park (south of Winton), where the species is known to occur, for three consecutive periods between June and November 2022. Four comparative sessions of live trapping were undertaken between April and August 2022 at the same locations. During the live trapping periods, a total of 12 nights of surveying were conducted with thermal imagery binoculars in a preliminary assessment of the technique. The total live trapping effort was 3600 trap nights (approximately 700 trap nights per site in each trapping event). Live trapping resulted in 12 detections of individual S. douglasi from 19 total captures. The highest trap success on a given trapping session was 1.71%, and overall trap success from both sites across all sessions was 0.53%. In comparison, baited camera traps (deployed facing the ground at 70 cm range) took 1,269,884 images over 5383 trap nights. There were 11 confirmed images of S. douglasi, on three individual occasions, which represented 2.10% of all small mammal captures and just 0.0009% of the total images. Four species of small mammals were detected using camera traps, whereas live trapping detected only two species. No small mammals were detected on any of the 12 thermal binocular surveys. Overall, our study highlights the comparative high utility of traditional live trapping for detecting S. douglasi. This research provides a framework for ongoing monitoring of the Bladensburg National Park population. It will be more broadly beneficial for informing the best detection techniques of S. douglasi in ongoing work investigating the overall distribution of the species. Similar studies assessing multiple detection methods for small terrestrial mammals have shown an advantage of white flash camera traps compared to other traditional detection techniques. Our contrasting results serve as a reminder that the utility of different techniques for detecting small mammals is best assessed on a species‐by‐species basis.
... Recent technological advancements have enabled significant progress in monitoring animal behavior, particularly through the use of camera traps that capture photos and videos (e.g., O 'Connell et al. 2011;McCallum 2012;Meek et al. 2014;Apps and McNutt 2018;Lizcano 2018;Akcali et al. 2019). These cameras have proven to be an essential and highly effective non-invasive tool for species identification (Steenweg et al. 2017;Sparkes and Fleming 2022;Paton et al. 2024). ...
El problema del daño causado por perros (Canis lupus familiaris Linnaeus, 1758) sobre otros animales es cada vez más alarmante. Este estudio tiene como objetivo demostrar el ataque de cánidos domésticos a un rebaño de ovejas perteneciente a un agricultor en la región centro-norte de Argentina, utilizando tecnologías no invasivas. Se realizaron 2 visitas en el campo, una el 23 de octubre 2023 y otra el 10 de noviembre 2023 para fotografiar las ovejas dañadas. Luego se instalaron 2 cámaras trampa genéricas sobre los postes de los alambrados. El rebaño de ovejas tuvo un ataque el 18 de noviembre de 2023, por lo que viajamos inmediatamente al rancho y se examinaron huellas y/o señales en las cercanías y dentro del corral de las ovejas. Luego de instalar las cámaras trampa, durante la madrugada del 29 de noviembre de 2023, se registró un nuevo ataque a 2 ovejas del mismo rancho. Las imágenes grabadas confirmaron que los ataques no eran de animales nativos sino por 2 de los perros domésticos del agricultor: un Doberman, asistido por un Border Collie. Inicialmente, se atribuyó la culpa del daño al rebaño a la fauna silvestre nativa, particularmente al puma, y se planeó su caza y muerte. Este estudio de caso refuerza la conclusión de que el primer paso fundamental para mitigar los conflictos fauna-humano, es escuchar a los afectados y buscar soluciones junto con ellos que no impliquen el uso de herramientas letales contra los carnívoros silvestres.
... Despite their rising popularity, assumptions that camera-traps are a truly passive monitoring method have been called into question, as they have been demonstrated to affect behaviour in several ways. For example, many animals can hear the camera-trap trigger (Meek et al. 2014b), and animals may notice the presence of a new object in their region, which often elicits a curiosity response (Cove and Jackson 2011;Meek et al. 2016). ...
... The most common speculation by researchers and wildlife managers is that animal behaviour may be influenced by seeing the white flash or glow of the camera-trap if an image is taken at night (Meek et al. 2014b;Henrich et al. 2020;Ladd et al. 2023). Wildlife managers and researchers can choose between white flash, either xenon bulb or white LED (visible light), infrared (red glow, ~850 nm wavelength) or black (low glow, ~940 nm) flash units to capture night images. ...
... It appears that infrared camera-traps are no more 'hidden' to feral cats than white flash cameras. Infrared camera-traps produce a low hum briefly before firing, and this auditory output can be heard by feral cats (Meek et al. 2014b), giving the animal a second of warning, allowing them to look at, or move closer to, the trap before the image is taken. Despite having similar rates of investigation, we suspect that cats notice these flash types for different reasons. ...
White flash camera-traps are avoided in predator monitoring as they are assumed to lower redetection, despite infrared cameras producing lower-quality night images thus limiting the scope for individual identification and, consequently, the accuracy of density estimates. We sought to determine whether flash type impacts the behaviour of cats (Felis catus). We identified different behavioural responses exhibited by photographed cats, and quantitatively assessed relative activity, redetection rates, and the activity of specific individuals using 11,389 images of feral cats from 62 white flash and 62 infrared camera-traps across Tasmania. We found no difference in the relative activity of cats between flash types (odds ratio of 0.90, [null expectation = 1], CI = 0.55, 1.47), and there was no evidence of a reduction in redetection rate of feral cats following initial detection (odds ratio = 0.83, CI = 0.47, 1.46). The activity of individuals was similar between white flash (average = 0.026, CI = 0.021, 0.032), and infrared cameras (average = 0.028, CI = 0.022, 0.035). White flash cameras appear suitable for monitoring feral cats without resulting in a negative bias, highlighting the need for researchers to critically examine assumptions regarding best methodology.
... The PUFD has different frequency ranges listed in specifications (20-24 kHz, 32-36 kHz and 40-45 kHz) all within the accepted upper limit of fox hearing capacity and confirmed for our study devices (Supplementary Material, Figure 2). Foxes have optimal hearing 10-14 kHz (Meek et al., 2014) with upper limits of the hearing range 34-65 kHz (Peterson et al., 1969, Isley andGysel, 1975). Preliminary tests indicated that the motion sensor had a detection angle of ~100 0 , and a detection range of ≤ 12 m. ...
... To determine suitability for selection in the study, real eggs were floated (Liebezeit et al., 2007) to estimate the clutch age (days since clutch completion) prior to setting up equipment. Clutch age was determined by calculating (after Mead, 2012) and assuming an average incubation period of 28 days. Clutches qualified for deployment if ≥ 2 days had elapsed since clutch completion and had an estimated minimum of one week of incubation remaining. ...
... However, the lack of plover response we observed to the PUFD suggests the light is not disruptive to incubation. Furthermore, both control and treatment sites had remote cameras installed to monitor the nest area, and it is acknowledged that most nocturnal mammals including foxes, can detect the infrared light that these cameras emit (Meek et al., 2014), thus creating a source of light at all sites in the study. ...
Red Foxes Vulpes vulpes are a key driver of low reproductive success in beach-nesting shorebirds such as the Hooded Plover Thinornis cucullatus cucullatus, with lethal fox control curtailed by free-roaming pets and nearby urban dwellings. We tested the efficacy of an ultrasonic deterrent to alter fox behaviour and improve clutch survival. A test of the device on mock clutches demonstrated no apparent negative effect on clutch survival so testing occurred on real clutches. The deterrent evoked responses from foxes. Assemblages of species visiting real clutches differed between treatment and control sites, such that foxes tended to visit control clutches more frequently than those with the acoustic deterrent; rates of fox visitation did not differ yet featured low statistical power. The acoustic device did not confer any large benefit in terms of improved clutch survival, although low statistical power precluded us from assessing whether smaller effects occurred. This study suggests that additional aversive stimuli are likely required to deter fox take of real plover eggs.
... This observation, while only anecdotal, does indicate that it is primarily visual cues by which feral cats recognize Felixers and are deterred. Moreover, it may be simply the shape or coloration that deters the animals, and not the electronics, which can be perceived by cats(Meek et al. 2014), as both Felixers and crates at Arid Recovery were unpowered yet still induced avoidance. This could partly explain the success of the disguised Felixer, as associating novel items with more familiar visual stimuli can also reduce aversion in some species. ...
Neophobia is an ecologically relevant personality trait that manifests as aversion to new or unfamiliar stimuli. Fear and subsequent avoidance of novel stimuli represents a challenge for pest management programs, as control tools that induce a neophobic response will reduce their effectiveness. Additionally, neophobia can be a plastic trait induced by exposure to high‐risk environments, and so can be exacerbated by repeated harassment, which often occurs in pest management programs that are conducted at high intensity. We investigated the propensity of feral cats (Felis catus) to exhibit neophobic behavior towards a novel control device. We also tested whether neophobia was altered by capture and radio‐collaring or changed over time. We found that there is significant potential for initial avoidance of control devices by some feral cats, and that capture and handling significantly increased the likelihood of avoidance. Neophobia generally declined over time suggesting that long‐term deployment may reduce the impact of neophobia. Avoidance of novel control tools could severely limit their effectiveness, especially if deployed to remove the last remaining cats from confined areas. Remaining cats may have avoided repeated attempts at conventional control techniques and so may be more neophobic. In such circumstances, control tool deployments should be lengthened considerably, to take advantage of waning neophobia over time, and, concealed effectively to hide them from neophobic cats. The increased neophobia recorded in cats that were handled and radio‐collared for monitoring suggests that results from experiments that test new control devices may not be indicative of the behavior of naïve cats. Changes to methodology such as minimizing capture and handling may be required to reduce neophobia and provide valid research results when testing novel control tools.
... However, trapping can be extremely labour intensive, and hence costly, especially when monitoring species with low capture rates (Thomas et al. 2020). Consequently, less intrusive methods, such as camera trapping, are increasingly being deployed to monitor small to medium-sized mammals across the world (Meek et al. 2014;Molyneux et al. 2017;Wearn and Glover-Kapfer 2019). The decision of which monitoring approach to deploy for an individual species relies on an accurate understanding of how any chosen device functions and their capacity to detect the species of interest (Welbourne et al. 2016;Moore et al. 2023). ...
Context
Freshwater ecosystems rank among the most threatened environments on Earth. Monitoring aquatic and semi-aquatic species is vital to informing conservation of freshwater ecosystems. However, many semi-aquatic mammals can be difficult to detect with conventional survey methods.
Aims
We aimed to identify the most effective survey method for detecting an Australian semi-aquatic mammal, the rakali (Hydromys chrysogaster).
Methods
We compared rakali detection rates among camera-trapping, live-trapping and visual surveys, and tested the influence of camera angle, trap proximity to water and time of survey, across the Yanco Creek system in southern New South Wales.
Key results
Nocturnal spotlight surveys were the most effective method for detecting rakali, with most observations occurring while individuals were foraging or swimming in the water. Camera traps facing a floating platform and cage traps mounted on floating platforms performed better than those deployed on land. Downward-facing camera traps detected rakali three times more often than did forward-facing cameras. Trapping rakali was unreliable, with the species detected at fewer than half of the sites where presence was confirmed via visual observation and camera traps. For species absence to be determined with 95% confidence, 2–4 weeks of nightly trapping is required, compared with six nights of visual surveys or 12 nights for a platform-facing camera. Morning visual surveys were largely ineffective because of predominantly nocturnal rakali activity and difficulty in detecting signs in creek environments.
Conclusions
The likelihood of detecting rakali can be maximised through the use of nightly spotlighting and deployment of baited camera traps focussed on platforms or natural resting areas within a water body.
Implications
Understanding the effectiveness of each method is essential for developing species-appropriate protocols for population monitoring. Our findings present suitable options to be further explored among the 100-plus small (<1 kg) semi-aquatic mammals worldwide that share similar behaviours and characteristics to the rakali, many of which are threatened or data deficient.
