See what you've been missing: An assessment of Reconyx® PC900 Hyperfire cameras

Urbanek, Rachael E.; Ferreira, Holly J.; Olfenbuttel, Colleen; Dukes, Casey G.; Albers, Geriann

doi:10.1002/wsb.1015

Cited by 17 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Cameras frequently missed passing animals, either by failing to trigger, or triggering too slowly (r t and r p , Table 4). These results are similar to those reported by studies using time-lapse images to recognize missed detections in Reconyx brand camera traps [12,39] or CCTV to compare detections of otters [7]. Trigger probability (r t ) appeared to increase with the body mass of the target species (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Empirical evaluation of the spatial scale and detection process of camera trap surveys

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Camera traps present a valuable tool for monitoring animals but detect species imperfectly. Occupancy models are frequently used to address this, but it is unclear what spatial scale the data represent. Although individual cameras monitor animal activity within a small target window in front of the device, many practitioners use these data to infer animal presence over larger, vaguely-defined areas. Animal movement is generally presumed to link these scales, but fine-scale heterogeneity in animal space use could disrupt this relationship. Methods We deployed cameras at 10 m intervals across a 0.6 ha forest plot to create an unprecedentedly dense sensor array that allows us to compare animal detections at these two scales. Using time-stamped camera detections we reconstructed fine-scale movement paths of four mammal species and characterized (a) how well animal use of a single camera represented use of the surrounding plot, (b) how well cameras detected animals, and (c) how these processes affected overall detection probability, p. We used these observations to parameterize simulations that test the performance of occupancy models in realistic scenarios. Results We document two important aspects of animal movement and how it affects sampling with passive detectors. First, animal space use is heterogeneous at the camera-trap scale, and data from a single camera may poorly represent activity in its surroundings. Second, cameras frequently (14–71%) fail to record passing animals. Our simulations show how this heterogeneity can introduce unmodeled variation into detection probability, biasing occupancy estimates for species with low p. Conclusions Occupancy or population estimates with camera traps could be improved by increasing camera reliability to reduce missed detections, adding covariates to model heterogeneity in p, or increasing the area sampled by each camera through different sampling designs or technologies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Empirical evaluation of the spatial scale and detection process of camera trap surveys

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The number of missed events in camera trap studies is seldom known, and can only be approximated when animal movements are controlled (e.g. Apps and McNutt (2018a) used monitored dog movements to trigger camera traps) or when time-lapse or continuously recording video cameras are used concurrently with camera traps (Glen et al 2013;Newey et al 2015;Jumeau et al 2017;Urbanek et al 2019). Similar to this study, Jumeau et al (2017) found in a study of small animals at wildlife underpasses that Reconyx HC600 camera traps missed 43% of mammal movements recorded from continuous video cameras.…”

Section: Pir Motion-sensor Height Trialsupporting

confidence: 61%

Optimising camera trap height and model increases detection and individual identification rates for a small mammal, the numbat (

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Camera traps are widely used to collect data for wildlife management, but species-specific testing is crucial. We conducted three trials to optimise camera traps for detecting numbats (Myrmecobius fasciatus), a 500–700-g mammal. We compared detection rates from (1) Reconyx PC900 camera traps installed at heights ranging from 10–45cm, and (2) Reconyx PC900, Swift 3C standard and wide-angle camera traps with differing detection zone widths. Finally, we compared elevated, downward-angled time-lapse cameras installed at heights ranging from 1–2m to obtain dorsal images for individual numbat identification. Camera traps set at 25cm had the highest detection rates but missed 40% of known events. During model comparison, Swift 3C wide-angle camera traps recorded 89%, Swift 3C standard 51%, and Reconyx PC900 37% of known events. The number of suitable images from elevated, downward-angled cameras, depicting dorsal fur patterns, increased with increasing camera height. The use of well regarded camera trap brands and generic recommendations for set-up techniques cannot replace rigorous, species-specific testing. For numbat detection, we recommend the Swift 3C wide-angle model installed at 25-cm height. For individual numbat identification, elevated, downward-angled time-lapse cameras were useful; however, more research is needed to optimise this technique.

show abstract

“…Some animals may even avoid camera traps (Meek et al 2016). Additionally, camera traps may not always trigger when an animal moves within the detection zone (Jumeau et al 2017;Urbanek et al 2019;Seidlitz et al 2020), especially when the animal is small (Gompper et al 2006;Damm et al 2010;Rowcliffe et al 2011;Urbanek et al 2019). However, camera traps have many advantages warranting further trials to improve numbat detection probabilities and reduce costs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sign surveys can be more efficient and cost effective than driven transects and camera trapping: a comparison of detection methods for a small elusive mammal, the numbat (

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context. Determining the most efficient detection method for a target species is key for successful wildlife monitoring and management. Driven transects and sign surveys are commonly used to monitor populations of the endangered numbat (Myrmecobius fasciatus). Camera trapping is being explored as a new method. These methods were unevaluated for efficacy and cost for numbat detection.Aims. To compare efficacy and costing of driven transects, sign surveys and camera trapping for detecting numbats in the Upper Warren region, Western Australia.Methods. Seven repeat sign surveys and driven transects, as well as 4 months of camera trapping, were conducted concurrently at 50 sites along three transects. Numbat detection rates and costing of the three techniques were compared, and detection probabilities were compared between sign surveys and camera trapping.Key results. Numbat signs were detected during 88 surveys at 39 sites, exceeding camera trapping (26 detections at 13 sites) and driven transects (seven detections near five sites). The estimated probability for detecting a numbat or a sign thereof (at a site where numbats were present) ranged from 0.21 to 0.35 for a sign survey, and 0.02 to 0.06 for 7 days of camera trapping. Total survey costs were lowest for driven transects, followed by camera trapping and sign surveys. When expressed as cost per numbat detection, sign surveys were cheapest.Conclusions. Comparative studies of survey methods are essential for optimal, cost-effective wildlife monitoring. Sign surveys were more successful and cost effective than camera trapping or driven transects for detecting numbats in the Upper Warren region. Together with occupancy modelling, sign surveys are appropriate to investigate changes in occupancy rates over time, which could serve as a metric for long-term numbat monitoring.Implications. There is no 'best' method for wildlife surveys. Case-specific comparison of animal detection methods is recommended to ensure optimal methods. For the numbat population in the Upper Warren region, further studies are needed to improve numbat detection rates from camera trapping, and to test sign surveys in autumn (March to May), when surviving juvenile numbats have established their own territory and assumptions regarding population closure are less likely to be violated.

show abstract

See what you've been missing: An assessment of Reconyx® PC900 Hyperfire cameras

Cited by 17 publications

References 37 publications

Empirical evaluation of the spatial scale and detection process of camera trap surveys

Empirical evaluation of the spatial scale and detection process of camera trap surveys

Optimising camera trap height and model increases detection and individual identification rates for a small mammal, the numbat (

Sign surveys can be more efficient and cost effective than driven transects and camera trapping: a comparison of detection methods for a small elusive mammal, the numbat (

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About