Effects of scent lure on camera trap detections vary across mammalian predator and prey species.
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 ef...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2020-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229055 |
| _version_ | 1819142708309000192 |
|---|---|
| author | Dacyn Holinda Joanna M Burgar A Cole Burton |
| author_facet | Dacyn Holinda Joanna M Burgar A Cole Burton |
| author_sort | Dacyn Holinda |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-22T12:14:38Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-b6dbb4b932fb4cfa91a79ae4e6879923 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-22T12:14:38Z |
| publishDate | 2020-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj.art-b6dbb4b932fb4cfa91a79ae4e68799232022-12-21T18:26:10ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032020-01-01155e022905510.1371/journal.pone.0229055Effects of scent lure on camera trap detections vary across mammalian predator and prey species.Dacyn HolindaJoanna M BurgarA Cole BurtonCamera 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.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229055 |
| spellingShingle | Dacyn Holinda Joanna M Burgar A Cole Burton Effects of scent lure on camera trap detections vary across mammalian predator and prey species. PLoS ONE |
| title | Effects of scent lure on camera trap detections vary across mammalian predator and prey species. |
| title_full | Effects of scent lure on camera trap detections vary across mammalian predator and prey species. |
| title_fullStr | Effects of scent lure on camera trap detections vary across mammalian predator and prey species. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Effects of scent lure on camera trap detections vary across mammalian predator and prey species. |
| title_short | Effects of scent lure on camera trap detections vary across mammalian predator and prey species. |
| title_sort | effects of scent lure on camera trap detections vary across mammalian predator and prey species |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229055 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT dacynholinda effectsofscentlureoncameratrapdetectionsvaryacrossmammalianpredatorandpreyspecies AT joannamburgar effectsofscentlureoncameratrapdetectionsvaryacrossmammalianpredatorandpreyspecies AT acoleburton effectsofscentlureoncameratrapdetectionsvaryacrossmammalianpredatorandpreyspecies |