Quantifying wildlife use of cave entrances using remote camera traps

Abstract

Digital infrared remote camera traps were placed at the entrance of twelve caves in Great Basin National Park, Nevada during the summer of 2013 to assess the wildlife use of cave entrances. The use of caves by surface wildlife is a major nutrient source for cave organisms that spend their entire lives underground. Cave entrances varied in size (0.9 to 50 m 2 ), cave length (10 to 1000 m), surface habitat (riparian versus pinyon/juniper), and management approach (gated versus no gate). Data from eight cave entrances are presented, with four other entrances removed from the analysis due to equipment failure. The cameras were deployed for a total of 372 trap days, with an average of 46.5 days per cave (range 28 to 62). The cameras captured 632 trap events, with separate events defined as more than an hour apart for the same species. Of the seventeen taxa documented, the most abundant species photographed were mice, chipmunks, humans, woodrats, and squirrels. Other species observed in cave entrances were cottontail rabbits, bats, skunks, foxes, insects, birds, and domestic dogs. Wildlife entered and exited caves most frequently between 1800 and 0600. Very little information has been previously documented about fauna using cave entrances, and this non-invasive, repeatable technique can help managers learn more about the dominant species using the entrance and twilight areas of the caves they manage, as well as peak use times.

Day–night and seasonal variations of a subterranean invertebrate community in the twilight zone

“…However, evidences have accumulated testifying that subterranean habitats are not entirely aseasonal Culver 1969, Tobin et al 2013), and that their inhabitants are not entirely arhythmic (Friedrich 2013, Abhilash et al 2017. Most subterranean habitats are indeed characterized by a constant flux of invaders and migrants (Chapman 1993, Culver and Sket 2002, Culver and Pipan 2009, Romero 2009, and there can be a temporal variability in the presence and distribution of vertebrates (e.g., Reichard et al 2009, Krofel 2010, Biswas 2014, Baker 2015, Ineich and Bourgoin 2016, Balogová et al 2017, Lunghi et al 2018) and invertebrates (e.g., Crouau-Roy et al 1992, Gnaspini et al 2003, Novak et al 2004, Papi and Pipan 2011, Tobin et al 2013, Mammola and Isaia 2014, Bento et al 2016, Mammola et al 2015, 2016a, Bichuette et al 2017, Lunghi et al 2017, Plăiaşu et al 2017 found in caves. For instance, invertebrates may move in search of food in larger cave chambers, and move back to the more stable fissures connected with caves in response to any physiological stress (Juberthie 1969, Chapman 1985.…”

Collecting eco‐evolutionary data in the dark: Impediments to subterranean research and how to overcome them

“…In caves, thermal-infrared imaging and laser scanning have been extensively applied to study the swarming and roosting behaviors of bats (Azmy et al, 2012;Elliott et al, 2005), but could potentially be used for other vertebrates, such as cave salamanders . In at least one case, camera trapping has even been used to quantifying wildlife use of cave entrances (Baker, 2015).…”

Finding answers in the dark: caves as models in ecology fifty years after Poulson and White

“…It is well understood that most subterranean habitats are characterized by a constant flux of invaders and migrants, i.e. species exploiting subterranean habitats in certain phases of their life cycle (Diesel et al 1995, Polak 1997, Culver and Sket 2002, Glover and Altringham 2008, Novak et al 2010a, Chelini et al 2011, Polseela et al 2011, Baker 2015, Lipovšek et al 2016. Moreover, there can be a temporal variability in the distribution of troglobionts inhabiting subterranean habitats.…”