To bait or not to bait: A comparison of camera-trapping methods for estimating leopard Panthera pardus density

Preez, Byron du; Loveridge, Andrew J.; Macdonald, David W.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.05.021

Cited by 126 publications

(118 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

112

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Again, the detection probability of the different age and sex classes must be taken into account if the composition of the captured population is to be used as an index of population status, as must the impact of baiting on detection probability among classes. Strangely, du Preez et al (2014) make no mention of subadult leopards in their study, only cubs and adults (leopards >4 years).…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…du Preez et al (2014) base their assertion that baiting provides a more representative picture of population structure solely on the detection of dependent cubs in baited but not unbaited surveys. The detection (or non-detection) of cubs in camera-trap surveys is not particularly informative.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…du Preez et al (2014) propose that baited camera-trap surveys are cheaper than unbaited surveys. However, they admit to not including the costs of baits in their calculations as these were donated.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…du Preez et al (2014) propose that baited camera-trap surveys of leopards Panthera pardus (1) generate more precise estimates of population density due to increased capture rates, (2) provide more accurate descriptions of population structure, and (3) are more cost effective than unbaited surveys. They also imply that baited camera-trap surveys are more accurate; however, they do not compare their density estimates against a known reference population, or even against an independent estimate of population density.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Goats are likely to be the most affordable bait in many such areas. du Preez et al (2014) suggest 300 baits of 10-50 kg are required per survey. Based on a mean price of $50 per goat, and depending on the amount of meat provided, baiting may cost an additional $7500-$15,000.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Baited camera-trap surveys – Marginally more precise but at what cost? A response to du Preez et al. (2014)

Balme

Hunter²,

Robinson³

2014

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 96%

mentioning

confidence: 98%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Baited camera-trap surveys – Marginally more precise but at what cost? A response to du Preez et al. (2014)

Balme

Hunter²,

Robinson³

2014

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Detecting early warnings of pressure on an African lion (Panthera leo) population in the Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area, Uganda

Braczkowski

Gopalaswamy

Nsubuga

et al. 2020

Ecol Sol and Evidence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. African lions are declining across much of their range, yet robust measures of population densities remain rare. The Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area (QECA; 2,400 km 2 ) in East Africa's Albertine Rift has potential to support a significant lion population. However, QECA lions are threatened, and information on the status of lions in the region is lacking.2. Here, we use a spatially explicit search encounter approach to estimate key population parameters of lions in the QECA. We then compare home range sizes estimated from our models to those from a radio-collaring study implemented a decade earlier.3. We recorded 8,243.5 km of search effort over 93 days, detecting 30 individual lions (16 female and 14 male) on 165 occasions at a rate of 2 lion detections/100 km 2 .Lion density in the QECA was 2.70 adult lions/100 km 2 (SD = 0.47), while mean abundance was 71 individuals (SD = 11.05).4. Worryingly, the movement parameter for male lions was 3.27 km and 2.22 km for females, suggesting > 400%, and > 100% increases in home range size, respectively, compared to a decade earlier. Sex ratio of lions in the QECA was lower (1 male: 0.75 females), when compared to a previously published review (mean = 1:2.33).

show abstract

Evaluation of camera trap‐based abundance estimators for unmarked populations

Amburgey

Adams

Gardner

et al. 2021

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Estimates of species abundance are critical to understand population processes and to assess and select management actions. However, capturing and marking individuals for abundance estimation, while providing robust information, can be economically and logistically prohibitive, particularly for species with cryptic behavior. Camera traps can be used to collect data at temporal and spatial scales necessary for estimating abundance, but the use of camera traps comes with limitations when target species are not uniquely identifiable (i.e., “unmarked”). Abundance estimation is particularly useful in the management of invasive species, with herpetofauna being recognized as some of the most pervasive and detrimental invasive vertebrate species. However, the use of camera traps for these taxa presents additional challenges with relevancy across multiple taxa. It is often necessary to use lures to attract animals in order to obtain sufficient observations, yet lure attraction can influence species’ landscape use and potentially induce bias in abundance estimators. We investigated these challenges and assessed the feasibility of obtaining reliable abundance estimates using camera‐trapping data on a population of invasive brown treesnakes (Boiga irregularis) in Guam. Data were collected using camera traps in an enclosed area where snakes were subject to high‐intensity capture–recapture effort, resulting in presumed abundance of 116 snakes (density = 23/ha). We then applied spatial count, random encounter and staying time, space to event, and instantaneous sampling estimators to photo‐capture data to estimate abundance and compared estimates to our presumed abundance. We found that all estimators for unmarked populations performed poorly, with inaccurate or imprecise abundance estimates that limit their usefulness for management in this system. We further investigated the sensitivity of these estimators to the use of lures (i.e., violating the assumption that animal behavior is unchanged by sampling) and camera density in a simulation study. Increasing the effective distances of a lure (i.e., lure attraction) and camera density both resulted in biased abundance estimates. Each estimator rarely recovered truth or suffered from convergence issues. Our results indicate that, when limited to unmarked estimators and the use of lures, camera traps alone are unlikely to produce abundance estimates with utility for brown treesnake management.

show abstract

To bait or not to bait: A comparison of camera-trapping methods for estimating leopard Panthera pardus density

Cited by 126 publications

References 25 publications

Baited camera-trap surveys – Marginally more precise but at what cost? A response to du Preez et al. (2014)

Baited camera-trap surveys – Marginally more precise but at what cost? A response to du Preez et al. (2014)

Detecting early warnings of pressure on an African lion (Panthera leo) population in the Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area, Uganda

Evaluation of camera trap‐based abundance estimators for unmarked populations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About