Camera traps are a unique survey tool used to monitor a wide variety of mammal species. Camera trap (CT) data can be used to estimate animal distribution, density, and behaviour. Attractants, such as scent lures, are often used in an effort to increase CT detections; however, the degree which the effects of attractants vary across species is not well understood. We investigated the effects of scent lure on mammal detections by comparing detection rates between 404 lured and 440 unlured CT stations sampled in Alberta, Canada over 120 day survey periods between February and August in 2015 and 2016. We used zero-inflated negative binomial generalized linear mixed models to test the effect of lure on detection rates for a) all mammals, b) six functional groups (all predator species, all prey, large carnivores, small carnivores, small mammals, ungulates), and c) four varied species of management interest (fisher, Pekania pennanti; gray wolf, Canis lupus; moose, Alces alces; and Richardson’s ground squirrel; Urocitellus richardsonii). Mammals were detected at 800 of the 844 CTs, with nearly equal numbers of total detections at CTs with (7110) and without (7530) lure, and variable effects of lure on groups and individual species. Scent lure significantly increased detections of predators as a group, including large and small carnivore sub-groups and fisher specifically, but not of gray wolf. There was no effect of scent lure on detections of prey species, including the small mammal and ungulate sub-groups and moose and Richardson’s ground squirrel specifically. We recommend that researchers explicitly consider the variable effects of scent lure on CT detections across species when designing, interpreting, or comparing multi-species surveys. Additional research is needed to further quantify variation in species responses to scent lures and other attractants, and to elucidate the effect of attractants on community-level inferences from camera trap surveys.
Effects of scent lure on camera trap detections vary across mammalian predator and prey species
Dacyn Holinda,J. Burgar,A. C. Burton
Published 2020 in bioRxiv
ABSTRACT
PUBLICATION RECORD
- Publication year
2020
- Venue
bioRxiv
- Publication date
2020-01-30
- Fields of study
Biology, Medicine, Environmental Science
- Identifiers
- External record
- Source metadata
Semantic Scholar, PubMed
CITATION MAP
EXTRACTION MAP
CLAIMS
CONCEPTS
- camera trap station
A fixed camera deployment site sampled during the Alberta survey.
Aliases: CT station, camera trap (CT) station
- fisher
A medium-sized carnivore species, Pekania pennanti, included among the management-interest species.
Aliases: Pekania pennanti
- gray wolf
A canid species, Canis lupus, included among the management-interest species.
Aliases: Canis lupus, wolf
- moose
A large ungulate species, Alces alces, included among the management-interest species.
Aliases: Alces alces
- predator group
The functional group used to combine all predator species in the camera-trap dataset.
Aliases: all predator species, predators
- prey group
The functional group used to combine all prey species in the camera-trap dataset.
Aliases: all prey
- richardson's ground squirrel
A small mammal species, Urocitellus richardsonii, included among the management-interest species.
Aliases: Richardson’s ground squirrel, Urocitellus richardsonii
- scent lure
An olfactory attractant placed at some camera trap stations to draw mammals toward the camera.
Aliases: lure
REFERENCES
Showing 1-37 of 37 references · Page 1 of 1
CITED BY
Showing 1-52 of 52 citing papers · Page 1 of 1