Climate change will increase the recurrence of extreme weather events such as drought and heavy rainfall. Evidence suggests that modifications in extreme weather events pose stronger threats to ecosystem functioning than global trends and shifts in average conditions. As ecosystem functioning is connected with ecological services, this has far-reaching effects on societies in the 21st century. Here, we: (i) present the rationale for the increasing frequency and magnitude of extreme weather events in the near future; (ii) discuss recent findings on meteorological extremes and summarize their effects on ecosystems and (iii) identify gaps in current ecological climate change research.

Iconographies supplémentaires de l'article : Research frontiers in climate change: Effects of extreme meteorological events on ecosystems

Summary 1. Abundance estimation is a pervasive goal in ecology. The rate of detection by motion-sensitive camera traps can, in principle, provide information on the abundance of many species of terrestrial vertebrates that are otherwise difficult to survey. The random encounter model (REM, Rowcliffe et al. 2008) provides a means estimating abundance from camera trap rate but requires camera sensitivity to be quantified. 2. Here, we develop a method to estimate the area effectively monitored by cameras, which is one of the most important codeterminants of detection rate. Our method borrows from distance sampling theory, applying detection function models to data on the position (distance and angle relative to the camera) where the animals are first detected. Testing the reliability of this approach through simulation, we find that bias depends on the effective detection angle assumed but was generally low at less than 5% for realistic angles typical of camera traps. 3. We adapted standard detection functions to allow for the possibility of smaller animals passing beneath the field of view close to the camera, resulting in reduced detection probability within that zone. Using a further simulation to test this approach, we find that detection distance can be estimated with little or no bias if detection probability is certain for at least some distance from the camera. 4. Applying this method to a 1-year camera trapping data set from Barro Colorado Island, Panama, we show that effective detection distance is related strongly positively to species body mass and weakly negatively to species average speed of movement. There was also a strong seasonal effect, with shorter detection distance during the wet season. Effective detection angle is related more weakly to species body mass, and again strongly to season, with a wider angle in the wet season. 5. This method represents an important step towards practical application of the REM, including abundance estimation for relatively small (<1 kg) species.

/pdf/quantifying-the-sensitivity-of-camera-traps-an-adapted-45ftdi3w3a.pdf

Quantifying the sensitivity of camera traps: an adapted distance sampling approach

Camera traps are used by scientists and natural resource managers to acquire ecological data, and the rapidly increasing camera trapping literature highlights how popular this technique has become. Nevertheless, the methodological information reported in camera trap publications can vary widely, making replication of the study difficult. Here we propose a series of guiding principles for reporting methods and results obtained using camera traps. Attributes of camera trapping we cover include: (i) specifying the model(s) of camera traps(s) used, (ii) mode of deployment, (iii) camera settings, and (iv) study design. In addition to suggestions regarding best practice data coding and analysis, we present minimum principles for standardizing information that we believe should be reported in all peer-reviewed papers. Standardised reporting enables more robust comparisons among studies, facilitates national and global reviews, enables greater ease of study replication, and leads to improved wildlife research and management outcomes.

Recommended guiding principles for reporting on camera trapping research

Practical techniques are required to monitor invasive animals, which are often cryptic and occur at low density. Camera traps have potential for this purpose, but may have problems detecting and identifying small species. A further challenge is how to standardise the size of each camera’s field of view so capture rates are comparable between different places and times. We investigated the optimal specifications for a low-cost camera trap for small mammals. The factors tested were 1) trigger speed, 2) passive infrared vs. microwave sensor, 3) white vs. infrared flash, and 4) still photographs vs. video. We also tested a new approach to standardise each camera’s field of view. We compared the success rates of four camera trap designs in detecting and taking recognisable photographs of captive stoats (Mustela erminea), feral cats (Felis catus) and hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus). Trigger speeds of 0.2–2.1 s captured photographs of all three target species unless the animal was running at high speed. The camera with a microwave sensor was prone to false triggers, and often failed to trigger when an animal moved in front of it. A white flash produced photographs that were more readily identified to species than those obtained under infrared light. However, a white flash may be more likely to frighten target animals, potentially affecting detection probabilities. Video footage achieved similar success rates to still cameras but required more processing time and computer memory. Placing two camera traps side by side achieved a higher success rate than using a single camera. Camera traps show considerable promise for monitoring invasive mammal control operations. Further research should address how best to standardise the size of each camera’s field of view, maximise the probability that an animal encountering a camera trap will be detected, and eliminate visible or audible cues emitted by camera traps.

/pdf/optimising-camera-traps-for-monitoring-small-mammals-o8eoubtvfm.pdf

Optimising camera traps for monitoring small mammals.

This paper provides an historical review of the technological evolution of camera trapping as a zoological survey tool in Australia. Camera trapping in Australia began in the 1950s when purpose-built remotely placed cameras were used in attempts to rediscover the thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus). However, camera traps did not appear in Australian research papers and Australasian conference proceedings until 1989-91, and usage became common only after 2008, with an exponential increase in usage since 2010. Initially, Australian publications under-reported camera trapping methods, often failing to provide fundamental details about deployment and use. However, rigour in reporting of key methods has increased during the recent widespread adoption of camera trapping. Our analysis also reveals a change in camera trap use in Australia, from simple presence-absence studies, to more theoretical and experimental approaches related to population ecology, behavioural ecology, conservation biology and wildlife management. Practitioners require further research to refine and standardise camera trap methods to ensure that unbiased and scientifically rigorous data are obtained from quantitative research. The recent change in emphasis of camera trapping research use is reflected in the decreasing range of camera trap models being used in Australian research. Practitioners are moving away from less effective models that have slow reaction times between detection and image capture, and inherent bias in detectability of fauna, to more expensive brands that offer faster speeds, greater functionality and more reliability. Additional keywords: camera trap, remote camera, Thylacine, trail camera, wildlife research, zoology.

The pitfalls of wildlife camera trapping as a survey tool in Australia

Context. There is an increasing reliance on the use of camera-trap technologies for surveys of medium to large terrestrial mammals. Camera trapping may, however, also have significant applications for broad-scale surveys of small mammals. Aims. The present study aims to compare results from camera-trapping surveys to those of the more traditional live-trapping techniques. Specifically, it aims to test the effectiveness of the techniques for detecting species, and the cost effectiveness of both approaches. Methods. Surveys were conducted across 36 sites in the Grampians National Park, Victoria, Australia, between April and July 2009. At each site, independent surveys were conducted for small mammals by using a combination of Elliot and cage trapping, then camera trapping. Results for the two different approaches were compared for both their ability to generate small-mammal presence data and their cost effectiveness. Key results. Camera-trapping surveys of 36 sites in the Grampians National Park compared favourably with those of live-trapping surveys. Similar species were detected across the sites, and camera trapping was a considerably more cost effective than live trapping. Conclusions. Camera-trapping surveys of small terrestrial mammals may provide a new and cost-effective technique for surveying terrestrial small mammals. This is particularly the case when presence data are the main requirement of the survey, with no requirement to capture and tag animals. Implications. Given the cost-effective nature of camera trapping, there is potential to use this approach to increase the level of replication and spatial coverage of small-mammal surveys. Improving the replication and spatial coverage of studies has the potential to significantly increase the scope of research questions that can be asked, thus providing the potential to improve wildlife management.

A comparison of the effectiveness of camera trapping and live trapping for sampling terrestrial small-mammal communities

Aim
Extreme climatic events and large wildfires are predicted to increase as the world's climate warms. Understanding how they shape species’ distributions will be critical for conserving biodiversity. We used a 7-year dataset of mammals collected during and after south-east Australia's Millennium Drought to assess the roles of fire history, climatic extremes and their interactions in shaping mammal distributions.

Location
Grampians National Park, south-eastern Australia.

Methods
We surveyed mammals at 36 sites along a ~50-year post-fire chronosequence in each of the 7 years. We modelled ten mammal species in relation to fire history, productivity and recent rainfall. Next, we examined the consistency of species’ fire response curves across each of three climatic phases relating to the Millennium Drought. Finally, we identified the optimal distribution of fire ages for small and medium-sized mammal conservation in each of the three climatic phases.

Results
The majority of species were influenced by fire history, and all native species were negatively associated with recently burned vegetation. Seven of ten species responded positively to the end of the Millennium Drought, but six of these declined quickly thereafter. Species’ responses to fire history differed depending on the climatic conditions. However, the optimal distribution of fire-age classes consistently emphasized the importance of older age classes, regardless of climatic phase. This distribution is in stark contrast to the current distribution of fire ages across the study region.

Main conclusions
Mammals in the study region face an uncertain future. The negative impact of drought, the short-lived nature of post-drought recovery and, now, the possibility of a new drought beginning forewarn of further declines. The stark contrast between the optimal and current fire-age distributions means that reducing the incidence of further fires is critical to enhance the capacity of native mammal communities to weather an increasingly turbulent climate.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ddi.12471

Natasha De Bondi

Papers

A comparison of the effectiveness of camera trapping and live trapping for sampling terrestrial small-mammal communities

Fire and climatic extremes shape mammal distributions in a fire-prone landscape