Limitations of recreational camera traps for wildlife management and conservation research: A practitioner’s perspective

Abstract

The availability of affordable ‘recreational’ camera traps has dramatically increased over the last decade. We present survey results which show that many conservation practitioners use cheaper ‘recreational’ units for research rather than more expensive ‘professional’ equipment. We present our perspective of using two popular models of ‘recreational’ camera trap for ecological field-based studies. The models used (for >2 years) presented us with a range of practical problems at all stages of their use including deployment, operation, and data management, which collectively crippled data collection and limited opportunities for quantification of key issues arising. Our experiences demonstrate that prospective users need to have a sufficient understanding of the limitations camera trap technology poses, dimensions we communicate here. While the merits of different camera traps will be study specific, the performance of more expensive ‘professional’ models may prove more cost-effective in the long-term when using camera traps for research.

Evaluation of wild animals browsing preferences in forage resources

“…Moreover, to have a proper evaluation of number and species of wild animals actually frequenting the experimental plots, six camera traps were placed just after the sowing on the boundary of experimental site and oriented towards the plots to record videos of occurring wild animals (Newey et al, 2015). Camera traps were set to start automatically when an animal entered its reference area and to record videos 30s long.…”

WiseEye: Next Generation Expandable and Programmable Camera Trap Platform for Wildlife Research

“…Arguably, this is nowhere better illustrated than in the rapid and widespread uptake of digital camera traps in wildlife research and management [2–4]. Camera traps are remote devices that automatically record images or video (hereafter we use ‘images’ to refer to both still images and video) of animals passing in front of them.…”

“…Amid the rapid uptake and widespread use of camera traps, there is growing concern and increasing recognition of their limitations and ability to deliver accurate, robust and ecologically meaningful data [4,6,12–15]. While some of these problems may be associated with the rapid uptake of a new methodology and uncritical use [4,6], other problems are more closely associated with the design and function of the underlying technologies [11]. …”

“…Moreover, there was an overarching call for a conceptual change in the design of camera traps towards developing a genuinely flexible system that enables users to tailor camera features and settings to a research question and the conditions of use [11]. Combining all of the aforementioned specific features identified by the camera trap research community [4,11,16,17] into one unit is impractical and undesirable, because not all features are required by all users all the time. However, there is an opportunity to exploit the flexibility that digital technology allows, namely to develop an adaptable, user customisable camera trap that can be configured and reconfigured to reflect a user’s changing requirements.…”

“…sunshine that produces sufficient temperature differential in the detection zone to trigger the PIR sensor), or when an animal triggers a sensor but is outside the field of view of the camera. The occurrence and number of false positive images is rarely quantified, but can amount to large numbers of unwanted images [4]. A large number of false positive images are likely to reduce the camera’s effective operational time by filling data storage and depleting batteries.…”