Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 11, 2025
05:28
Quantifying Corticolous Arthropods Using Sticky Traps
Published on: January 19, 2020
5.6K
Camera trap placement for evaluating species richness, abundance, and activity
Kamakshi S Tanwar1, Ayan Sadhu1, Yadvendradev V Jhala2
1Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani, Dehradun, 248001, India.
Scientific Reports
|November 30, 2021
Summary
Camera trap placement impacts wildlife estimates. Optimized placement for carnivores showed biases in abundance and activity, unlike random placement, affecting ecological inferences.
Area of Science:
- Wildlife ecology
- Camera trapping methodologies
- Conservation biology
Background:
- Camera traps are crucial for wildlife research, informing estimates of species presence, richness, abundance, demography, and activity patterns.
- The design and placement of camera traps significantly influence the accuracy and potential biases of these ecological parameter estimates.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the accuracy and biases of parameter estimates derived from camera traps placed for optimizing large carnivore captures versus those placed randomly.
- To evaluate how different camera trap placement strategies affect inferences on species richness, abundance, and activity patterns.
Main Methods:
- Simultaneous data collection using two camera trap setups: one optimized for large carnivore captures (trail cameras) and another with random placement.
- Comparison of species richness, relative abundance indices (RAI), ungulate group size, and activity patterns between the two setups (n=31 cameras each).
- Validation of RAI against capture-mark-recapture and distance sampling methods for random camera data.
Main Results:
- Both camera trap setups detected 25 species, with trail cameras showing a faster species accumulation rate.
- Random cameras provided RAI that closely mirrored abundance estimates from other methods; trail cameras yielded higher, biased RAI for carnivores.
- Group size estimates for wild ungulates were comparable, but random cameras revealed nocturnal activity, while trail cameras primarily captured diurnal activity.
Conclusions:
- While both trail and random camera setups yield similar species richness and ungulate group size estimates, they differ significantly for relative abundance and activity patterns.
- Inferences drawn from camera trap data regarding abundance and activity must consider the specific placement strategy employed.
- Understanding placement-induced biases is critical for accurate wildlife population assessments and ecological studies.
