Melanistic leopards reveal their spots: Infrared camera traps provide a population density estimate of leopards in malaysia

2015 ◽  
Vol 79 (5) ◽  
pp. 846-853 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurie Hedges ◽  
Wai Yee Lam ◽  
Ahimsa Campos-Arceiz ◽  
D. Mark Rayan ◽  
William F. Laurance ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Population Density ◽  
Infrared Camera ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Density Estimate ◽  
Population Density Estimate

scholarly journals Extensive aquatic subsidies lead to territorial breakdown and high density of an apex predator

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte E Eriksson ◽  
Daniel L.Z Kantek ◽  
Selma S Miyazaki ◽  
Ronaldo G Morato ◽  
Manoel dos Santos-Filho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Population Density ◽  
Social Interactions ◽  
Aquatic Ecosystems ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Apex Predator ◽  
Gps Collars ◽  
Seasonally Flooded ◽  
Population Density Estimate ◽  
Brazilian Pantanal ◽  
Solitary Behavior

Energetic subsidies between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems can strongly influence food webs and population dynamics. Our objective was to study how aquatic subsidies affected jaguar (Panthera onca) diet, sociality, and population density in a seasonally flooded protected area in the Brazilian Pantanal. The diet (n = 138 scats) was dominated by fish (46%) and aquatic reptiles (55%), representing the first jaguar population known to feed extensively on fish and to minimally consume mammals (11%). These aquatic subsidies supported the highest jaguar population density estimate to date (12.4 per 100 km2) derived from camera traps (8,065 trap nights) and GPS collars (n = 13). Contrary to their mostly solitary behavior elsewhere, we documented social interactions previously unobserved between same-sex adults including cooperative fishing, co-traveling, and play. Our research demonstrates that aquatic subsidies seen in omnivores can be highly influential to obligate carnivores leading to high population density and altered social structure.

A policymaker perspective on use of a population density estimate to manage cougar harvest risk (Beausoleil et al. 2021): A reply to Thorburn

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Beausoleil ◽  
Lindsay S. Welfelt ◽  
Ilai N. Keren ◽  
Brian N. Kertson ◽  
Benjamin T. Maletzke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Population Density ◽  
Density Estimate ◽  
Population Density Estimate

Pits or pictures: a comparative study of camera traps and pitfall trapping to survey small mammals and reptiles

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon J. Dundas ◽  
Katinka X. Ruthrof ◽  
Giles E. St.J. Hardy ◽  
Patricia A. Fleming
Keyword(s):  
Community Composition ◽  
Small Mammals ◽  
Survey Methods ◽  
Infrared Camera ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Camera Trapping ◽  
Survey Method ◽  
Pitfall Traps ◽  
Pitfall Trapping ◽  
Trapping Methods

Context Camera trapping is a widely used monitoring tool for a broad range of species across most habitat types. Camera trapping has some major advantages over other trapping methods, such as pitfall traps, because cameras can be left in the field for extended periods of time. However, there is still a need to compare traditional trapping methods with newer techniques. Aims To compare trap rates, species richness and community composition of small mammals and reptiles by using passive, unbaited camera traps and pitfall traps. Methods We directly compared pitfall trapping (20-L buried buckets) with downward-facing infrared-camera traps (Reconyx) to survey small reptiles and mammals at 16 sites within a forested habitat in south-western Australia. We compared species captured using each method, as well as the costs associated with each. Key results Overall, we recorded 228 reptiles, 16 mammals and 1 frog across 640 pitfall trap-nights (38.3 animal captures per 100 trap-nights) compared to 271 reptiles and 265 mammals (for species likely to be captured in pitfall traps) across 2572 camera trap nights (20.8 animal captures per 100 trap-nights). When trap effort is taken into account, camera trapping was only 23% as efficient as pitfall trapping for small reptiles (mostly Scincidae), but was five times more efficient for surveying small mammals (Dasyuridae). Comparing only those species that were likely to be captured in pitfall traps, 13 species were recorded by camera trapping compared with 20 species recorded from pitfall trapping; however, we found significant (P<0.001) differences in community composition between the methods. In terms of cost efficacy, camera trapping was the more expensive method for our short, 4-month survey when taking the cost of cameras into consideration. Conclusions Applicability of camera trapping is dependent on the specific aims of the intended research. Camera trapping is beneficial where community responses to ecosystem disturbance are being tested. Live capture of small reptiles via pitfall trapping allows for positive species identification, morphological assessment, and collection of reference photos to help identify species from camera photos. Implications As stand-alone techniques, both survey methods under-represent the available species present in a region. The use of more than one survey method improves the scope of fauna community assessments.

scholarly journals Fauna diversity in the southern part of the Kon Ka Kinh National Park, Gia Lai province

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 139-151
Author(s):  
Nguyen Ai Tam ◽  
Nguyen Van Tay ◽  
Nguyen Thi Kim Yen ◽  
Ha Thang Long
Keyword(s):  
National Park ◽  
Wildlife Conservation ◽  
Animal Species ◽  
Infrared Camera ◽  
Camera Trap ◽  
Iucn Red List ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Survey Results ◽  
Set Up ◽  
First Time

Kon Ka Kinh National Park (KKK NP) is a priority zone for biodiversity protection in Vietnam as well as ASEAN. In order to survey the current fauna species diversity in the southern part of the KKK NP, we conducted camera trapping surveys in 2017, 2018, and 2019. 28 infrared camera traps were set up on elevations between 1041 to 1497 meters. In total, there were 360 days of survey using camera trap. As result, we recorded a total of 27 animal species of those, five species are listed in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2020). The survey results showed a high richness of wildlife in the southern park region, and it also revealed human disturbance to wildlife in the park. The first-time camera trap was used for surveying wildlife diversity in the southern region of the KKK NP. Conducting camera trap surveys in the whole KKK NP is essential for monitoring and identifying priority areas for wildlife conservation in the national park.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document