Abstract
Camera traps are a cost-effective tool for large-scale and long-term population monitoring of mammals. Either bait or lure is often used to attract animals in front of a camera; however, the relative efficiency of these two attractants, or their combination, is not well understood. Our objective was to determine the optimal attractant setup for maximizing detection probabilities of mammals in the northeast USA. We conducted a camera trapping project in northern Maine, USA, from August to November 2018, and tested three distinct attractant treatments against a control. Sampling stations were a minimum of 5 km apart, and consisted of four camera units spaced 100 m apart, and paired with one of the four setups: (1) bait plus lure (treatment), (2) bait (treatment), (3) lure (treatment), and (4) camera only (control). Detection data on 11 species of mammals were collected from 41 stations and analyzed through multi-method occupancy models. We totaled 4280 photo-trap-nights and captured 37,781 images. Results showed that the combination of bait plus lure was the most effective for increasing detection probability of carnivores. Specifically, bait plus lure proved to be particularly effective for mustelid species, while lure was particularly effective for American black bear (Ursus americanus). While attractant usage was shown to be ineffective for increasing detection probability of non-carnivores, it also did not decrease effectiveness. Based on our results, we recommend the simultaneous use of both bait and lure as attractants when conducting camera trapping work on mammals. The combination of bait and lure appears to maximize detection of carnivore species, while simultaneously having minimal effects on the detection of other taxa.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andelt WF, Woolley TP (1996) Responses of urban mammals to odor attractants and a bait-dispensing device. Wildl Soc Bull 24:111–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/3782842
Austin C, Tuft K, Ramp D, Cremona T, Webb JK (2017) Bait preference for remote camera trap studies of the endangered northern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus). Aust Mammal 39:72–77. https://doi.org/10.1071/AM15053
Braczkowski AR, Balme GA, Dickman A, Fattebert J, Johnson P, Dickerson T, Macdonald DW, Hunter L (2016) Scent lure effect on camera-trap based leopard density estimates. PLoS ONE 11:e0151033. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151033
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin
Burton AC, Neilson E, Moreira D, Ladle A, Steenweg R, Fisher JT, Bayne E, Boutin S (2015) REVIEW: wildlife camera trapping: a review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes. J Appl Ecol 52:675–685. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12432
Carreras-Duro J, Moleón M, Barea-Azcón JM, Ballesteros-Duperón E, Virgós E (2016) Optimization of sampling effort in carnivore surveys based on signs: a regional-scale study in a Mediterranean area. Mamm Biol 81:205–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2015.12.003
Clare J, McKinney ST, DePue JE, Loftin CS (2017) Pairing field methods to improve inference in wildlife surveys while accommodating detection covariance. Ecol Appl 27:2031–2047. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1587
Du Preez BD, Loveridge AJ, Macdonald DW (2014) To bait or not to bait: a comparison of camera-trapping methods for estimating leopard Panthera pardus density. Biol Conserv 176:153–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.05.021
Evans BE, Mosby CE, Mortelliti A (2019) Assessing arrays of multiple trail cameras to detect North American mammals. PLoS ONE 14:e0217543. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217543
Ferreira-Rodríguez N, Pombal MA (2019) Bait effectiveness in camera trap studies in the Iberian Peninsula. Mammal Res 64:155–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13364-018-00414-1
Ferreras P, Díaz-Ruiz F, Alves PC, Monterroso P (2017) Optimizing camera-trapping protocols for characterizing mesocarnivore communities in south-western Europe. J Zool 301:23–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12386
Ferreras P, Díaz-Ruiz F, Monterroso P (2018) Improving mesocarnivore detectability with lures in camera-trapping studies. Wildl Res 45:505–517. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR18037
Fonju BF (2011) Camera trapping of the coyote (Canis latrans) and other mammal species on the wind river ranch, New Mexico. New Mexico Highlands University—thesis
Foresman KR, Pearson DE (1998) Comparison of proposed survey procedures for detection of forest carnivores. J Wildl Manag 62:1217–1226. https://doi.org/10.2307/3801985
Gerber BD, Karpanty SM, Kelly MJ (2012) Evaluating the potential biases in carnivore capture–recapture studies associated with the use of lure and varying density estimation techniques using photographic-sampling data of the Malagasy civet. Popul Ecol 54:43–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-011-0276-3
Gese EM, Ruff RL (1997) Scent-marking by coyotes, Canis latrans: the influence of social and ecological factors. Anim Behav 54:1155–1166. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1997.0561
Gommper ME, Kays RW, Ray JC, Lapoint S, Bogan DA, Cryan JA (2006) A comparison of non-invasive techniques to survey carnivore communities in northeastern North America. Wildl Soc Bull 34:1142–1151. https://doi.org/10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34%5b1142:acontt%5d2.0.co;2
Harrison RL (1997) Chemical attractants for central american felids. Wildl Soc Bull 25:93–97
Hegglin D, Bontadina F, Gloor S, Romer J, Muller U, Breitenmoser U, Deplazes P (2005) Baiting red foxes in an urban area: a camera trap study. J Wildl Manag 68:1010–1017. https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-541x(2004)068%5b1010:brfiau%5d2.0.co;2
Huff ES, McWilliams WH (2016) Forests of Maine, 2015. Resource Update FS-86. Newtown Square, PA. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station
Jacobs CE, Ausband DE (2018) An evaluation of camera trap performance—what are we missing and does deployment height matter? Remote Sens Ecol Conserv 4:352–360. https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.81
Jones LLC, Raphael MG (1993) Inexpensive camera systems for detecting martens, fishers, and other animals: guidelines for use and standardization. Gen Tech Rep—US Dep Agric For Serv, vol 22, pp 306–334
Jordan MJ, Lobb-Rabe M (2015) An evaluation of methods to attract urban mesocarnivores to track plates and camera traps. Northwest Sci 89:383–392. https://doi.org/10.3955/046.089.0406
Kowalski B, Watson F, Garza C, Delgado B (2015) Effects of landscape covariates on the distribution and detection probabilities of mammalian carnivores. J Mammal 96:511–521. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyv056
Long RA, MacKay P, Ray J, Zielinski W (eds) (2008) Noninvasive survey methods for carnivores. Island Press, Washington DC
Mata C, Ruiz-Capillas P, Malo JE (2017) Small-scale alterations in carnivore activity patterns close to motorways. Eur J Wildl Res 63:64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-017-1118-1
Meek P, Ballard G, Fleming P, Falzon G (2016a) Are we getting the full picture? Animal responses to camera traps and implications for predator studies. Ecol Evol 6:3216–3225. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2111
Meek PD, Ballard GA, Falzon G (2016b) The higher you go the less you will know: placing camera traps high to avoid theft will affect detection. Remote Sens Ecol Conserv 2:204–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.28
Mills D, Fattebert J, Hunter L, Slotow R (2019) Maximising camera trap data: using attractants to improve detection of elusive species in multi-species surveys. PLoS ONE 14:e0216447. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216447
Monterroso P, Alves PC, Ferreras P (2011) Evaluation of attractants for non-invasive studies of Iberian carnivore communities. Wildl Res 38:446–454. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR11060
Monterroso P, Rebelo P, Alves PC, Ferreras P (2016) Niche partitioning at the edge of the range: a multidimensional analysis with sympatric martens. J Mammal 97:928–939. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyw016
Moriarty KM, Zielinski WJ, Forsman ED (2011) Decline in American marten occupancy rates at Sagehen experimental forest, California. J Wildl Manag 75:1774–1787. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.228
Mortelliti A, Boitani L (2008a) Evaluation of scent-station surveys to monitor the distribution of three European carnivore species (Martes foina, Meles meles, Vulpes vulpes) in a fragmented landscape. Mamm Biol 73:287–292
Mortelliti A, Boitani L (2008b) Interaction of food resources and landscape structure in determining the probability of patch use by carnivores in fragmented landscapes. Landsc Ecol 23:285–298
Moruzzi T, Fuller T, DeGraaf RM, Rooks RT, Li W (2002) Assessing remotely triggered cameras for surveying carnivore distribution. Wildl Soc Bull 30:380–386
Nichols JD, Bailey L, O’Connell AF, Talancy NW, Grant EHC, Gilbert AT, Annand EM, Husband TP, Hines JE (2008) Multi-scale occupancy estimation and modelling using multiple detection methods. J Appl Ecol 45:1321–1329. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.0
Nichols M, Glen A, Garvey P, Ross J (2017) A comparison of horizontal versus vertical camera placement to detect feral cats and mustelids. N Z J Ecol 41:145–150. https://doi.org/10.20417/nzjecol.41.11
NOAA (2010) U.S. Climate Normals. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/climate-normals/1981-2010-normals-data. Accessed 29 Sept 2019
O’Connell AF, Nichols JD, Karanth KU (2011) Camera traps in animal ecology: methods and analyses. Springer, New York
Paull DJ, Claridge AW, Barry SC (2011) There’s no accounting for taste: bait attractants and infrared digital cameras for detecting small to medium ground-dwelling mammals. Wildl Res 38:188–195. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR10203
Prigioni C, Balestrieri A, Remonti L, Cavada L (2008) Differential use of food and habitat by sympatric carnivores in the eastern Italian Alps. Ital J Zool 75:173–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/11250000701885521
Rich LN, Miller DAW, Robinson HS, McNutt JW, Kelly MJ (2016) Using camera trapping and hierarchical occupancy modelling to evaluate the spatial ecology of an African mammal community. J Appl Ecol 53:1225–1235. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12650
Rovero F, Zimmermann F, Berzi D, Meek P (2013) “Which camera trap type and how many do I need?” A review of camera features and study designs for a range of wildlife research applications. Hystrix 24:148–156. https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-24.2-6316
Rowcliffe JM, Carbone C (2008) Surveys using camera traps: are we looking to a brighter future? Anim Conserv 11:185–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2008.00180.x
Satterfield LC, Thompson JJ, Snyman A, Candelario L, Rode B, Carroll JP (2017) Estimating occurrence and detectability of a carnivore community in eastern Botswana using baited camera traps. Afr J Wildl Res 47:32–46. https://doi.org/10.3957/056.047.0032
Schlexer FV (2008) Attracting Animals to Detection Devices. In: Long RA, MacKay P, Ray J, Zielinski W (eds) Noninvasive survey methods for carnivores. Island Press, Washington DC, pp 263–292
Seymour RS, Hunter MLJ (1992) New forestry in eastern spruce-fir forests: principles and applications to Maine. Misc Publ 716:36
Shannon G, Lewis JS, Gerber BD (2014) Recommended survey designs for occupancy modelling using motion-activated cameras: insights from empirical wildlife data. PeerJ 2:e532. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.532
Sirén APK, Pekins PJ, Kilborn JR, Kanter JJ, Sutherland CS (2017) Potential influence of high-elevation wind farms on carnivore mobility. J Wildl Manag 81:1505–1512. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21317
Steenweg R, Hebblewhite M, Kays R, Ahumada J, Fisher JT, Burton C, Townsend SE, Carbone C, Rowcliffe JM, Whittington J, Brodie J, Royle JA, Switalski A, Clevenger AP, Heim N, Rich LN (2017) Scaling-up camera traps: monitoring the planet’s biodiversity with networks of remote sensors. Front Ecol Environ 15:26–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1448
Stokeld D, Frank ASK, Hill B, Choy JL, Mahney T, Stevens A, Young S, Rangers D, Rangers W, Gillespie GR (2015) Multiple cameras required to reliably detect feral cats in northern Australian tropical savanna: an evaluation of sampling design when using camera traps. Wildl Res 42:642–649. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR15083
Swann DE, Hass CC, Dalton DC, Wolf SA (2004) Infrared-triggered cameras for detecting wildlife: an evaluation and review. Wildl Soc Bull 32:357–365. https://doi.org/10.2193/0091-7648(2004)32%5b357:icfdwa%5d2.0.co;2
Thorn M, Scott DM, Green M, Bateman PW, Cameron EZ (2009) Estimating brown hyaena occupancy using baited camera traps. S Afr J Wildl Res 39:1–10. https://doi.org/10.3957/056.039.0101
Torretta E, Mosini A, Piana M, Tirozzi P, Serafini M, Puopolo F, Saino N, Balestrieri A (2017) Time partitioning in mesocarnivore communities from different habitats of NW Italy: insights into martens’ competitive abilities. Behaviour 154:241–266. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539X-00003420
Williams BW, Etter DR, Linden DW, Millenbah KF, Winterstein SR, Scribner KT (2009) Noninvasive hair sampling and genetic tagging of co-distributed fishers and American martens. J Wildl Manag 73:26–34. https://doi.org/10.2193/2007-429
Zielinski WJ, Kucera TE (1995) American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine: survey methods for their detection. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-157. https://doi.org/10.2737/PSW-GTR-157
Acknowledgements
This study was made possible with volunteered field work by Griffin Archambault. This work was supported by the Charlie Slavin Research Fund at the University of Maine Honors College, the Academic Year Fellowship from the Center for Undergraduate Research at the University of Maine, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (Pittsmann–Robertson Funds), the Cooperative Forestry Research Unit and the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (McIntire-Stennis Project Number ME0-41913) through the Maine Agricultural & Forest Experiment Station. All funding agencies did not play any role in the planning, execution, or analysis of the research. Thanks to Dr. Daniel Harrison, Dr. Walter Jakubas and two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Handling editor: Mauro Lucherini.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Buyaskas, M., Evans, B.E. & Mortelliti, A. Assessing the effectiveness of attractants to increase camera trap detections of North American mammals. Mamm Biol 100, 91–100 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42991-020-00011-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42991-020-00011-3