Estimating effective survey duration in camera trap distance sampling surveys.
animal abundance
camera recovery time
camera trap distance sampling
retrigger delay
still images
video
Journal
Ecology and evolution
ISSN: 2045-7758
Titre abrégé: Ecol Evol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101566408
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2023
Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
08
03
2023
revised:
03
07
2023
accepted:
04
09
2023
medline:
16
10
2023
pubmed:
16
10
2023
entrez:
16
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Among other approaches, camera trap distance sampling (CTDS) is used to estimate animal abundance from unmarked populations. It was formulated for videos and observation distances are measured at predetermined 'snapshot moments'. Surveys recording still images with passive infrared motion sensors suffer from frequent periods where animals are not photographed, either because of technical delays before the camera can be triggered again (i.e. 'camera recovery time') or because they remain stationary and do not immediately retrigger the camera following camera recovery time (i.e. 'retrigger delays'). These effects need to be considered when calculating temporal survey effort to avoid downwardly biased abundance estimates. Here, we extend the CTDS model for passive infrared motion sensor recording of single images or short photo series. We propose estimating 'mean time intervals between triggers' as combined mean camera recovery time and mean retrigger delays from the time interval distribution of pairs of consecutive pictures, using a Gamma and Exponential function, respectively. We apply the approach to survey data on red deer, roe deer and wild boar. Mean time intervals between triggers were very similar when estimated empirically and when derived from the model-based approach. Depending on truncation times (i.e. the time interval between consecutive pictures beyond which data are discarded) and species, we estimated mean time intervals between retriggers between 8.28 and 15.05 s. Using a predefined snapshot interval, not accounting for these intervals, would lead to underestimated density by up to 96% due to overestimated temporal survey effort. The proposed approach is applicable to any taxa surveyed with camera traps. As programming of cameras to record still images is often preferred over video recording due to reduced consumption of energy and memory, we expect this approach to find broad application, also for other camera trap methods than CTDS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37841220
doi: 10.1002/ece3.10599
pii: ECE310599
pmc: PMC10571013
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e10599Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Conserv Biol. 2022 Feb;36(1):e13721
pubmed: 33595149
Trends Ecol Evol. 2006 Dec;21(12):668-73
pubmed: 16919361
PeerJ. 2022 May 27;10:e13510
pubmed: 35651744
J Anim Ecol. 2018 May;87(3):825-837
pubmed: 29243250
Am J Primatol. 2019 Mar;81(3):e22962
pubmed: 30811079
Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 20;10(1):17729
pubmed: 33082374
Conserv Biol. 2021 Feb;35(1):88-100
pubmed: 32297655
Sci Rep. 2023 Mar 20;13(1):4561
pubmed: 36941335
J Wildl Manage. 2015 Aug;79(6):1014-1021
pubmed: 26640297