Developing recommendations for monitoring wildlife underpass usage using trail cameras

Pomezanski, Dorian; Bennett, Lorne

doi:10.1007/s10661-018-6794-0

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The system tested in this study, based on PIT tags, an array of detectors, and automatic recording, allows the detection of small animals (e.g., mammals, amphibians, reptiles and insects), and can provide precise behavioural information on how they react to tunnel characteristics. This system has the potential to enhance the ability to evaluate wildlife passages, resulting in more detailed information that is critical in improving their design [49]. Targeted experiments could also be implemented to test particular tunnel characteristics (e.g., length, substrate, luminosity, etc.)…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic detection of small PIT-tagged animals using wildlife crossings

Testud

Vergnes

Cordier³

et al. 2019

Anim Biotelemetry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Mitigating the effect of linear transport infrastructure (LTI) on fauna is a crucial issue in road ecology. Wildlife crossing structures (tunnels or overpasses) are one solution that has been implemented to restore habitat connectivity and reduce wildlife mortality. Evaluating how these crossings function for small wildlife has often been recommended but, mainly due to technical limitations, is not often conducted in practice or only as short-term monitoring (less than 1 year). In this study, we developed and tested an automated device that records the detailed behaviour of animals when using wildlife tunnels. The method is based on marking and detecting individuals with RFID (radio-frequency identification) tags and allows small animals to be tracked. Composed of four antennas (detectors) placed at roughly 2 m intervals, the system was tested in a tunnel in northern France in the summer of 2017. One species of amphibian (the toad Bufo spinosus, n = 13) and two carabids (the ground beetles Carabus coriaceus and Carabus nemoralis, respectively, n = 3 and n = 4), marked beforehand with PIT (passive integrated transponder) tags, were recorded when they crossed these detectors. This allowed individual trajectories, including crossing speed, to be estimated. Results: We found that 12 of the 13 toads and 3 of the 7 ground beetles successfully crossed the entire wildlife passage of 7 m long. The detection rate of each detector varied from 8.33 to 100%, with a mean of 52.08%. All individuals were recorded by at least one detector. We observed high variability in the crossing characteristics of toads (mean transit duration = 41 min and 15 s ± 25 min) and ground beetles (6 h 11 min ± 3 h 30 min). The system provided information on precise trajectories (e.g., crossing speed, U-turns, distance travelled in the tunnel, proportion of individuals reaching the exit, etc.) for each individual, in a context of tunnel crossing. Conclusion: The system allowed us to record small animal behaviour in the context of tunnel crossing in which other types of tracking (e.g. radio-tracking) or detection (e.g. camera traps) are not effective. It also opens the possibility for a range of experiments that would contribute to a better understanding of the behaviour of small animals in tunnels, allowing a comparison of tunnel characteristics (such as size, building material, substrate, etc.) with the aim of increasing wildlife use of the tunnel and proposing guidelines for the construction and maintenance of these mitigation measures.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic detection of small PIT-tagged animals using wildlife crossings

Testud

Vergnes

Cordier³

et al. 2019

Anim Biotelemetry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The use of an RFID multi-antenna system can provide information on how small animals behave when crossing tunnels (Testud et al, 2019), thus allowing tunnel characteristics to be tested to improve their use (Pomezanski and Bennett, 2018;Testud et al, 2019). However, the price of the device (reader and antenna) and the detection distance of marked individuals could be limiting (Winandy and Denoël, 2011;Testud et al, 2019;Weber et al, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is a high variability in wildlife passage crossing success in Amphibians (Brehm, 1989;Allaback and Laabs, 2003;Dodd et al, 2004;Lesbarrères et al, 2004;Woltz et al, 2008;Patrick et al, 2010;Malt, 2011;Hamer et al, 2014;Bain et al, 2017;Matos et al, 2018;Pomezanski and Bennett, 2018;10.3389/fevo.202210.3389/fevo. .958655 Jarvis et al, 2019Chajma et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Camera traps are also widely used for movement tracking in tunnels (reviewed in Jumeau, 2017). While their detection rate has been reported as low for amphibians (Pagnucco et al, 2012), the increase in the quality of video traps implemented makes them more relevant for such small species (Hobbs and Brehme, 2017;Pomezanski and Bennett, 2018;Jarvis et al, 2019;Brehme et al, 2021). Using PIT tags is a traditional marking technique in amphibians (e.g., Perret and Joly, 2002;Winandy and Denoël, 2011;Testud et al, 2019;Weber et al, 2019).…”

Section: Pit Tags and Rfid Antennas In Wildlife Passagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Improving trajectories of amphibians in wildlife passages

Testud

Canonne²,

Petitcorps³

et al. 2022

Front. Ecol. Evol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Linear transport infrastructure can alter the viability of populations and wildlife passages are used to mitigate their impacts. The assessment of their outcomes is often limited to recording the use of the tunnels by a focal species. For amphibians, the effectiveness of tunnels is poorly evaluated with little information about whether certain features encourage individuals that may be reluctant to pass through tunnels. One study showed that acoustic enrichment with anuran calls can increase the crossing of tunnels by newts. This study recorded the behavior of three European amphibian species in three tunnels, tracking them with PIT tags and detection with four RFID antennas installed on the floor of the tunnels. We tested (1) the effectiveness of the antennas in detecting the species, (2) the effect of the length of the tunnels, and (3) the effect of acoustic enrichment. Using a multi-state capture–recapture model, we evaluated the probability of an individual advancing between the tunnel sections. The effectiveness of the antennas varied according to species, higher for Urodela species than for Anuran species. Several types of paths were detected (constant and varying speeds, halt, and back-and-forth movements). The fire salamander and the great crested newt individuals exhibited a similar variety of movements in the tunnels (21 and 40 m length). Triturus cristatus made similar movements in the tunnels with and without acoustic enrichment. In water frogs, all the individuals (n = 16) made a complete crossing in the tunnel with enrichment vs. 75% (n = 71) in the tunnel without enrichment. In T. cristatus, the probability of going forward at the entrance of the tunnel was 18% higher with enrichment in one tunnel. No significant effect of acoustic enrichment was observed in two others tunnels for this species. In Pelophylax esculentus, this probability was 78% higher in the tunnel with enrichment. This multi-antenna RFID system was able to provide valuable information on the behavior of these small animals when traversing the tunnels, as well as to test the effectiveness of tunnel features. The findings indicate that acoustic enrichment to attract animals to specific locations holds promise as a new conservation tool.

show abstract

“…There are diverse groups of forensically important, necrophagous insects which colonize carrion (Amendt et al, 2007), including primarily members of the insect orders Diptera and Coleoptera (Benecke, 2001;Kulshreshta & Satpathy, 2001). Camera traps (trail cameras) are useful to non-invasively monitor wildlife populations and scavenging behavior in mammals (Devault et al, 2004;Pomezanski & Bennett, 2018;Schlichting et al, 2019). Presently, there is a dearth of information on either the frequency of reptile carrion scavenged by local wildlife (Antworth et al, 2005;Abernathy et al, 2017) or the extent of insect colonization on reptile carcasses (Watson & Carlton, 2005a, b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%