You are not logged in.

Camera traps : the research paparazzi

Dixon, V., Glover, H., Treloar, S., Winnell, J., Whisson, D. and Weston, M. 2008, Camera traps : the research paparazzi, in AWMS 2008 : Human impacts on wildlife : Proceedings of the 21st Australasian Wildlife Management Society Conference, AWMS, Fremantle, WA, pp. 55-55.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title Camera traps : the research paparazzi
Author(s) Dixon, V.
Glover, H.
Treloar, S.
Winnell, J.
Whisson, D.ORCID iD for Whisson, D. orcid.org/0000-0002-4221-0706
Weston, M.ORCID iD for Weston, M. orcid.org/0000-0002-8717-0410
Conference name Australasian Wildlife Management Society Conference (21st : 2008 : Fremantle, W.A.)
Conference location Fremantle, W.A.
Conference dates 24-27 Nov. 2008
Title of proceedings AWMS 2008 : Human impacts on wildlife : Proceedings of the 21st Australasian Wildlife Management Society Conference
Editor(s) Glen, A.S.
Publication date 2008
Start page 55
End page 55
Publisher AWMS
Place of publication Fremantle, WA
Summary The use of cameras to monitor wildlife is commonplace; however, little is known of the effectiveness of different camera technologies for the detection of mammals. We compared the detection success of three different camera systems, a passive infrared (IR) system, an active IR and a constant video camera, alongside a trapping grid of Elliott and cage traps to determine their effectiveness at detecting mammals at multiple locations in the Otways National Park, Victoria, Australia (n = 160 events; 40 ± 23 [SD] events per night). Species detected and detection rates differed between methods (χ2 = 57.95, df = 2, p < 0.0001). Only house mice (Mus musculus) were detected by camera and traditional trapping techniques. Camera systems alone detected foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and a koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), while traditional traps captured bush rats (Rattus fuscipes), agile antechinus (Antechinus agilis) and a brush-tailed possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) which were not detected by the camera systems. Assuming that the video camera detected all mammals at the camera trap, the passive IR system detected almost all mammals detected by the video and it detected significantly more species than the active IR system. The choice of method will ultimately depend on the species of interest, logistics and the study site, and may substantially influence the results of a study.
Language eng
Field of Research 050202 Conservation and Biodiversity
Socio Economic Objective 969999 Environment not elsewhere classified
HERDC Research category L2 Full written paper - non-refereed (minor conferences)
Copyright notice ©2008, AWMS
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30019344

Document type: Conference Paper
Collections: School of Life and Environmental Sciences
Centre for Integrative Ecology
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 0 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 564 Abstract Views, 1 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Fri, 11 Sep 2009, 10:43:58 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.