Evaluation of three remote camera systems for detecting mammals and birds

Automated camera systems have widespread application in wildlife studies and their use is increasing (Kucera & Barrett 1993; Cutler & Swann 1999; Swann et al. 2004; Parker et al. 2008). Among other applications, they have been used to produce species inventories, estimate population sizes, study behaviour and examine the impact and activity of predators (Cutler & Swann 1999; Swann et al. 2004). Modern camera systems can operate for extended durations, are relatively non-invasive, easy to operate, portable, durable and can take good-quality images by day and night (Kucera & Barrett 1993; Peterson & Thomas 1998; Allison & Destefano 2006; Parker et al. 2008). Beyond their scientific applications, the generation of high-quality images can be useful for educational and conservation purposes (Cutler & Swann 1999). The two most common types of systems currently used in ecological research are passive and active infrared (IR) systems (Cutler & Swann 1999; Parker et al. 2008). An older form of remote photography is video which captures a continuous record of activity at a focal site (Stewart et al.1997; King et al. 2001). Camera systems have certain limitations and biases (Swann et al. 2004), yet these have not been well studied. Refinement of the use of camera systems is required to fully realize their value (Towerton et al. 2008). Here, we describe a comparison of detection rates of mammals and birds by passive and active IR camera systems, using a video system to benchmark detection rates.