Modeling Louisiana Pinesnake Habitat to Guide the Search for Population Relicts

Anderson, Amanda D.; Ryberg, Wade A.; Skow, Kevin L.; Pierce, Brian L.; Frizzell, Shelby; Neuharth, Dalton B.; Adams, Connor S.; Johnson, Timothy E.; Pierce, Josh B.; Rudolph, D. Craig; Lopez, Roel R.; Hibbitts, Toby J.

doi:10.1656/058.019.0401

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…K = number of parameters, AIC c = Akaike's Information Criterion, ΔAIC c = change in AIC c , w i = model weight. A previous camera trapping study using time-lapse triggered camera trapping technique to survey for P. ruthveni in potentially suitable habitats in Texas was also successful at detecting large-bodied snake species but failed to detect the target species (Anderson et al 2020. Neuharth et al (2020) et al 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A previous camera trapping study using time‐lapse triggered camera trapping technique to survey for P . ruthveni in potentially suitable habitats in Texas was also successful at detecting large‐bodied snake species but failed to detect the target species (Anderson et al 2020, Neuharth et al 2020). Neuharth et al (2020) recorded >8 million images from 26 cameras at 7 sites, taking pictures at similar intervals to our study, between February and October 2016.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Related approaches have applied external near infrared beams at crossing stations that trigger the camera when broken by moving reptiles (Hobbs and Brehme 2017). Other techniques have applied time‐lapse settings on camera traps mounted facing the ground at drift‐fence intersections to increase detections (Neuharth et al 2020) and reduce resource demands of long‐term or distribution‐wide monitoring for rare and secretive snake species (Adams et al 2017, Anderson et al 2020).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Testing the detection of large, secretive snakes using camera traps

Walkup

Ryberg

Pierce

et al. 2022

Wildlife Society Bulletin

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Novel technologies, such as camera traps, have expanded the opportunities for species detection, especially for rare species. Corresponding changes in data processing must occur to handle the large volume of data gathered from technology like camera traps. Automated image data processing, usually by running images through different types of computer algorithms, is an overarching goal to reduce the number of images that researchers must manually review. However, differences in camera trap setups and species characteristics can make automatic processing a challenge. Here, we evaluated the detection accuracy and efficiency of a time‐lapse triggered camera trapping technique combined with a pixel change detection algorithm as part of a monitoring program for a translocated population of the rare and federally threatened Louisiana Pinesnake (Pituophis ruthveni). We paired 5 cameras with automated pit tag readers to collect observations of P. ruthveni. We evaluated an image dataset of 1,500,187 images, collected over 7 months, both manually (i.e., researchers looking at each individual picture to determine snake presence) and automatically using a change detection algorithm. There were 18 P. ruthveni observations recorded by the tag readers, 7 of which occurred while a paired camera was not operational. Ten of the tag reader P. ruthveni observations were captured by the paired camera trap, with an additional P. ruthveni observation from a paired camera trap not recorded by the tag reader. There were 132 snake observations of 13 additional species and 18 observations of unknown snakes from the camera traps. The algorithm reduced the number of images reviewers evaluated by an average of 78.5% per camera (range = 37.3–98.7%) but had a 54.5% success rate at detecting observations of P. ruthveni (47.1% for individual images), and a slightly lower 48.9% success rate detecting other large snakes. Large snakes were 4 times more likely to be flagged by the algorithm than small snakes. Our time‐lapse triggered camera trapping technique performed well with respect to P. ruthveni detection accuracy, compared to the tag readers. However, further research is needed to improve quality assurances of camera trap image filtering and object recognition algorithms across different sites or environments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%