Use of camera traps to measure predation risk in a puma–mule deer system

Abstract

Previous work indicated that automated camera traps may be useful in estimating predation risk among different microhabitats for mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). We tested the prediction that the number of photographs taken by automated camera traps was inversely related to the amount of food left by deer in feeding boxes or giving up densities (GUDs). We positioned camera traps adjacent to standard mule deer feeding boxes placed in open and edge microhabitats of 3 forest types: Douglas‐fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), juniper (Juniperus osteosperma), and mountain mahongany (Cercocarpus ledifolius). We compared number of photographs taken with daily GUDs for the boxes for the 2 microhabitats. We found that GUD data of our study coincided with the previous work of lower GUDs in open versus edge microhabitats for Douglas‐fir (288.6±17.1 g vs. 389.6±19.4 g; P < 0.001) and juniper (218.9±26.3 g vs. 251.9±29.6 g, P=0.027) but not for mountain mahogany (272.4±29.5 g vs. 287.0±32.3 g, P=0.414). We also found significantly more total photos/camera taken in open microhabitat versus edge microhabitat in Douglas‐fir (16.2±2.2 vs. 7.4±1.5; P=0.004). More photos/camera were taken in the open versus edge in the juniper forest type (15.6±3.9 vs. 11.5±3.9), but the difference was not significant. There was no difference in photos/camera between the 2 microhabitats in the mountain mahogany (18.4±3.4 vs. 19.3±1.9). Total number of photos/day/box also was significantly related to the GUDs for the 3 forest types (P=0.002–0.008). The amount of variability explained by regression equations (r2adjusted) ranged from 22% for Douglas‐fir to 29% for juniper. We concluded that the total number of photographs taken does reflect the results of GUD analysis and that automated camera traps could be used to assess predation risk among different microhabitats.

Defining Neotropical Otter Lontra Longicaudis Distribution, Conservation Priorities and Ecological Frontiers

“…Large species also have more accurate representations of their distribution, as most models are based on climatic variables, which are more determinant at larger scales [23,24]. Among SDMs, Maximum entropy (MaxEnt) is a method used for predictions or inferences with presence-only data [21,[25][26][27][28], and is as efficient as models with both presence and absence data [26,29]. This model tool is highly recommended for studies with the same goals as our work, since the model discriminates between appropriate and inappropriate areas fairly well when compared with other methods [26,30].…”

Is cattle grazing an effective deterrent against sika deer (Cervus nippon) intrusion into pastures?

“…However, the preference for open habitats over forest edge was also observed in mule deer (Altendorf et al . 2001; Hernαndez et al . 2005).…”

Long-term automatic video recording as a tool for analysing the time patterns of utilisation of predefined locations by wild animals

“…Population parameters were estimated based on records of automatic film cameras (wild sheep, Jaeger et al 1991;white-tailed deer, Jacobson et al 1997). To examine scavenging events by pumas on mule deer, camera traps for single pictures were used (Bauer et al 2005;Hernandez et al 2005). In addition, single photographs were used to record adult female white-tailed deer on seasonal bait sites (Campbell et al 2006).…”