Please note that UPSpace will be unavailable from Friday, 2 May at 18:00 (South African Time) until Sunday, 4 May at 20:00 due to scheduled system upgrades. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause and appreciate your understanding.
dc.contributor.author | McIntyre, Trevor![]() |
|
dc.contributor.author | Majelantle, Tshepiso Lesedi![]() |
|
dc.contributor.author | Slip, D.J.![]() |
|
dc.contributor.author | Harcourt, R.G.![]() |
|
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-11-10T11:49:42Z | |
dc.date.available | 2021-11-10T11:49:42Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2020-02 | |
dc.description.abstract | CONTEXT : Data obtained from camera traps are increasingly used to inform various population-level models. Although acknowledged, imperfect detection probabilities within camera-trap detection zones are rarely taken into account when modelling animal densities. AIMS : We aimed to identify parameters influencing camera-trap detection probabilities, and quantify their relative impacts, as well as explore the downstream implications of imperfect detection probabilities on population-density modelling. METHODS : We modelled the relationships between the detection probabilities of a standard camera-trap model (n = 35) on a remotely operated animal-shaped soft toy and a series of parameters likely to influence it. These included the distance of animals from camera traps, animal speed, camera-trap deployment height, ambient temperature (as a proxy for background surface temperatures) and animal surface temperature. We then used this detection-probability model to quantify the likely influence of imperfect detection rates on subsequent population-level models, being, in this case, estimates from random encounter density models on a known density simulation. KEY RESULTS : Detection probabilities mostly varied predictably in relation to measured parameters, and decreased with an increasing distance from the camera traps and speeds of movement, as well as heights of camera-trap deployments. Increased differences between ambient temperature and animal surface temperature were associated with increased detection probabilities. Importantly, our results showed substantial inter-camera (of the same model) variability in detection probabilities. Resulting model outputs suggested consistent and systematic underestimation of true population densities when not taking imperfect detection probabilities into account. CONCLUSIONS : Imperfect, and individually variable, detection probabilities inside the detection zones of camera traps can compromise resulting population-density estimates. IMPLICATIONS : We propose a simple calibration approach for individual camera traps before field deployment and encourage researchers to actively estimate individual camera-trap detection performance for inclusion in subsequent modelling approaches. | en_ZA |
dc.description.department | Mammal Research Institute | en_ZA |
dc.description.department | Zoology and Entomology | en_ZA |
dc.description.librarian | hj2021 | en_ZA |
dc.description.sponsorship | The Department of Science and Technology through the National Research Foundation of South Africa. | en_ZA |
dc.description.uri | http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/144.htm | en_ZA |
dc.identifier.citation | McIntyre, T., Majelantle, T.L., Slip, D.J. et al. 2020, 'Quantifying imperfect camera-trap detection probabilities: implications for density modelling', Wildlife Research 47(2): 177-185, https://doi.org/10.1071/WR19040. | en_ZA |
dc.identifier.issn | 1035-3712 (print) | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1448-5494 (online) | |
dc.identifier.other | 10.1071/WR19040 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2263/82632 | |
dc.language.iso | en | en_ZA |
dc.publisher | CSIRO Publishing | en_ZA |
dc.rights | © CSIRO 2020 | en_ZA |
dc.subject | Detectability | en_ZA |
dc.subject | Mark–recapture | en_ZA |
dc.subject | Performance | en_ZA |
dc.subject | Random encounter model | en_ZA |
dc.title | Quantifying imperfect camera-trap detection probabilities : implications for density modelling | en_ZA |
dc.type | Postprint Article | en_ZA |