camera trap poster final

1
Camera Trapping at Big Chico Creek Ecological Reserve (BCCER) Kohner Vugrenes, Billy Bullard, Moua Lor, Kirsten Westwick, Max Chance Department of Biology, California State University Chico Background Methods (Continued) Results Discussion References The Big Chico Creek Ecological Reserve (BCCER) is comprised of 3,995 acres along a 4.5-mile corridor of Big Chico Creek watershed. The reserve encompasses a wide variety of environments: oak woodland, pine forest, riparian zone, chaparral, spring and rock cliff, creek riffle, and pool. A diverse assemblage of wildlife use the reserve including many listed species, migratory species, and transient individuals who require large tracts of land. The ecological reserve is managed by California State University,Chico, and incorporates a management plan that strives to stand as a model for restoration education and natural resource stewardship. Understanding the composition of large mammal communities, and temporal and spatial patterns of habitat utilization are critical to the land management of the BCCER, as well as education outreach. Due to the reserve’s topographic lay out, various habitat corridors and zones are of difficult access making surveying of mammal populations challenging. In order to further understand the composition of the reserve’s transient mammal populations, a preliminary experiment of camera trap monitoring was set into place. Automatically triggered cameras, which detect motion and take either still images or video, have been proven to be a reliable source for detection of various transient animal species (Benevides et al. 2008; Heilbrun et al. 2006). The development of technology in the recent years has made wildlife trail cameras relatively inexpensive and increasingly more dependable. In this study we set out to establish a protocol for camera usage specific to the equipment available and topography of BCCER with the intent of developing a long-term monitoring project which can be implemented within the limits of an upper division biology class. Due to the current drought year, accessibility to the far western side of the reserve was permitted as the flow of Big Chico creek was significantly low in comparison to historical years. In most years, early spring accessibility by atv is limited to the Eastern side of the reserve between Big Chico Creek and Highway 32. Ease of access to cameras placed on the eastern side would make continuation of this protocol more feasible and possible for continuation by future classes. •The effectiveness in capturing transient wildlife is related to both the general placement of the camera as well as the specific conditions of the deployment in the site. We established a strict procedure of camera installation including selection of installation site, preparation of the site, and testing camera angles in order to minimize operator error. The camera must be placed in a location that is stable and permanent as to avoid movement from wind. A tree or multiple shrub trunks with no less than a 30 mm dbh (diameter breast height) was preferred. All free-moving material (branches, leaves, tall grass etc.) within 10 feet of the cameras vision was cut or removed in order to minimize camera trigger from wind blown debris. •Once the camera was successfully anchored, we took five trial pictures by setting the camera for five, 10 mp pictures at five-second intervals. Once initiated, the camera would delay for 30 seconds and a group member would walk/crawl in front of the camera (see image 1). After the five trial pictures were taken, the memory card would then be removed. The five trial pictures would be viewed on a laptop or hand-held camera (Browning BTC-2XR, Moultrie1100i, and Stealth G42NG), or on the provided viewing screen (Moultrie 1080i) to ensure that the camera was positioned correctly. The memory cards were then reinserted and formatted to the specific camera model. Any minor adjustment of the cameras position and angle were made, and the camera was left in place for an initial 7 days before data were retrieved. The initial 7 days were to set a precedent for the battery and memory capacities. On the final outing of the study two of the cameras were switched to high-resolution video mode, in order to compare effectiveness of picture vs. video capture. •Along with determining various camera trapping logistics, we also managed to observe species that would have been infeasible without the use of these cameras. We witnessed different species in different locations based on where the cameras were set up. The camera traps were most frequently set off by squirrels, followed by foxes and bears. Some distinct species observed were •Black Bears (Ursus americanus), •Striped Skunks (Mephitis mephitis), •Grey Foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), •Black-tailed Deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), •Bobcats (Lynx rufus) and a •Mountain Lion (Puma concolor). •Camera traps provide useful information about local fauna for the purposes of cataloging species and numbers present, which can then be used for wildlife management purposes. Camera traps allow for users to observe elusive animals and behavior not typically seen in the presence of humans. Historically, camera traps have been used to research anything from animal behavior and identifying nest predators to estimating population sizes and monitoring rare and endangered species (Dreibelis, 2009). We used the cameras primarily for species identification purposes after recording the cameras’ capabilities. As stated previously, observed species on note include the black bear, black-tailed deer, grey fox, and bobcats. From the data we gathered concerning the camera capabilities, we can begin to make some conclusion about what works best for future camera trap studies. We observed that rechargeable batteries simply do not hold their charge as long as the non-rechargeable batteries, like Duracell Ultra and Eveready Gold batteries. Although none of the memory cards ever reached full capacity, it would still be recommended to use 32GB SD cards or larger so fewer trips into the field are necessary. Fewer trips into the field would mean less disturbance and potentially increased odds of observing elusive species. To lengthen the time between visits rigging the cameras with larger batteries or, when possible, equipping solar panels to maintain power to the cameras would be advisable. Benevides, FL; Hansen, H and Hess, SC. 2008. Design and Evaluation of a Simple Signaling Device for Live Traps. The Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol. 72, No. 6 Dreibelis, JZ; Locke, SL; Cathey, JC; Collier, B; and Hardin, J. 2009. Potential Uses for Trail Cameras in Wildlife Management. AgriLife Extension. Texas A&M System Heilbrun, RD; Peterson, MJ; Silvy, NJ and Twews, ME. 2006. Estimating Bobcat Abundance Using Automatically T riggered Cameras .. Wildlife Society Bulletin. Vol. 34, No. 1 Methods Camera placement and Positioning: We deployed five cameras in five locations throughout the BCCER. Camera types and Models: Three of the cameras are property of CSU Research Foundation (2 Moultrie 1100i and 1 Moultrie i-40) and two additional cameras were purchased for this project by the study group (Stealth G42NG and Browning BTC-2XR) . Locations were chosen to balance the need for accessibility of data retrieval and probability of encountering target species. We placed cameras at confluences of wildlife trails, in areas where animals could gain easy access to water, or would need to pass through topographic restrictions. The locations were previewed using aerial imagery on Google Earth and ground-truthed with multiple hikes. Three of the camera locations were chosen on the eastern ridge, as to be close to road access and to allow for class involvement. The remaining two cameras were placed on the less accessible western ridge, which could not be visited by the class. Figure 1. Map of camera placement within the (BCCER). Bait: Four different types of animal attractant were tested on various camera sites: sardines, canned cat food, cougar urine, and beaver castor oil. The first week of study the camera traps were left un-baited. Bait types were altered between cameras in order to gain a better understanding of which attracted more transient wildlife. The duration of bait placement based upon weather, consumption of the bait by wildlife, and timing of accessibility. In order to avoid conflating the effects of different baits, all baits were left in place for a minimum of seven days prior to replacement or changes in bait type. Battery Life and Memory Card Capacity: The ability for a camera to remain in the field with minimal visits is important practical and scientific reasons. Four of the five cameras were powered by eight standard AA batteries, the fifth Moultrie was powered by six D batteries. To test the battery life, the cameras were placed in their desired locations and left initially for seven days. Subsequent outings were based on the amount of memory capacity on the memory card, and remaining battery life. Three types of batteries were used to determine best longevity: rechargeable batteries, Duracell ultra, and Eveready Gold batteries. Cameras were checked at varying time periods based upon accessibility and weather conditions. We used memory cards ranging in capacity from 8GB to 32GB based on availability. Figure 2. Camera 5 captured two Grey Foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) foraging. Figure 3. A cinnamon coated Black Bears (Ursus americanus) was found by camera 3. Figure 4. A group of Black-tailed Deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) found by camera 4 Figure 5. At camera 1 this image of a Mountain Lion (Puma concolor) prowling through the night. •During the last 14 days of the study two of the cameras on the western side were switched to video mode, one at 3 second intervals and the other at 10 second intervals. We may conclude that behavioural and animal identifications are much easier under the 10 second video mode. Videos provided more detailed information about the individual animals and species. Overall videos in this study presumed to give better information about the observed animals. This is due to the fact that the delay between video segments and pictures is equal. A high quality 10mp video and picture both have a 5 second delay between the motion sensor reset. If an animal is moving at any rate of speed there was a trend to have one blurry picture with 4 consecutive blurry pictures. The video mode proved to give a larger window of observation. •It may be possible in the future to couple the cameras with software programs to identify individual animals using any unique markings on the animals. Using at least two cameras in tandem at each location can assist with identifying unique markings and to positively identify species in less than ideal lighting conditions. The ability to identify individuals of a species can assist researchers in making claims about animals behavior and habitat range if enough cameras are distributed through the reserve. Figure 6. Captured by camera 2 a Bobcats (Lynx rufus).

Transcript of camera trap poster final

Page 1: camera trap poster final

Camera Trapping at Big Chico Creek Ecological Reserve (BCCER)Kohner Vugrenes, Billy Bullard, Moua Lor, Kirsten Westwick, Max Chance

Department of Biology, California State University Chico

Background Methods (Continued)

Results

Discussion

References

The Big Chico Creek Ecological Reserve (BCCER) is comprised of 3,995 acres along a 4.5-mile corridor of Big Chico Creek watershed. The reserve encompasses a wide variety of environments: oak woodland, pine forest, riparian zone, chaparral, spring and rock cliff, creek riffle, and pool.  A diverse assemblage of wildlife use the reserve including many listed species, migratory species, and transient individuals who require large tracts of land. The ecological reserve is managed by California State University,Chico, and incorporates a management plan that strives to stand as a model for restoration education and natural resource stewardship.

Understanding the composition of large mammal communities, and temporal and spatial patterns of habitat utilization are critical to the land management of the BCCER, as well as education outreach.  Due to the reserve’s topographic lay out, various habitat corridors and zones are of difficult access making surveying of mammal populations challenging. In order to further understand the composition of the reserve’s transient mammal populations, a preliminary experiment of camera trap monitoring was set into place. Automatically triggered cameras, which detect motion and take either still images or video, have been proven to be a reliable source for detection of various transient animal species (Benevides et al. 2008; Heilbrun et al. 2006). The development of technology in the recent years has made wildlife trail cameras relatively inexpensive and increasingly more dependable. In this study we set out to establish a protocol for camera usage specific to the equipment available and topography of BCCER with the intent of developing a long-term monitoring project which can be implemented within the limits of an upper division biology class.

Due to the current drought year, accessibility to the far western side of the reserve was permitted as the flow of Big Chico creek was significantly low in comparison to historical years.  In most years, early spring accessibility by atv is limited to the Eastern side of the reserve between Big Chico Creek and Highway 32.  Ease of access to cameras placed on the eastern side would make continuation of this protocol more feasible and possible for continuation by future classes.  

•The effectiveness in capturing transient wildlife is related to both the general placement of the camera as well as the specific conditions of the deployment in the site. We established a strict procedure of camera installation including selection of installation site, preparation of the site, and testing camera angles in order to minimize operator error. The camera must be placed in a location that is stable and permanent as to avoid movement from wind. A tree or multiple shrub trunks with no less than a 30 mm dbh (diameter breast height) was preferred.  All free-moving material (branches, leaves, tall grass etc.) within 10 feet of the cameras vision was cut or removed in order to minimize camera trigger from wind blown debris.•Once the camera was successfully anchored, we took five trial pictures by setting the camera for five, 10 mp pictures at five-second intervals. Once initiated, the camera would delay for 30 seconds and a group member would walk/crawl in front of the camera (see image 1). After the five trial pictures were taken, the memory card would then be removed. The five trial pictures would be viewed on a laptop or hand-held camera (Browning BTC-2XR, Moultrie1100i, and Stealth G42NG), or on the provided viewing screen (Moultrie 1080i) to ensure that the camera was positioned correctly. The memory cards were then reinserted and formatted to the specific camera model. Any minor adjustment of the cameras position and angle were made, and the camera was left in place for an initial 7 days before data were retrieved. The initial 7 days were to set a precedent for the battery and memory capacities. On the final outing of the study two of the cameras were switched to high-resolution video mode, in order to compare effectiveness of picture vs. video capture.

•Along with determining various camera trapping logistics, we also managed to observe species that would have been infeasible without the use of these cameras. We witnessed different species in different locations based on where the cameras were set up.  The camera traps were most frequently set off by squirrels, followed by foxes and bears.  Some distinct species observed were •Black Bears (Ursus americanus), •Striped Skunks (Mephitis mephitis), •Grey Foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus),•Black-tailed Deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), •Bobcats (Lynx rufus) and a •Mountain Lion (Puma concolor).

•Camera traps provide useful information about local fauna for the purposes of cataloging species and numbers present, which can then be used for wildlife management purposes. Camera traps allow for users to observe elusive animals and behavior not typically seen in the presence of humans.  Historically, camera traps have been used to research anything from animal behavior and identifying nest predators to estimating population sizes and monitoring rare  and endangered species (Dreibelis, 2009).  We used the cameras primarily for species identification purposes after recording the cameras’ capabilities.  As stated previously, observed species on note include the black bear, black-tailed deer, grey fox, and bobcats.  From the data we gathered concerning the camera capabilities, we can begin to make some conclusion about what works best for future camera trap studies.  We observed that rechargeable batteries simply do not hold their charge as long as the non-rechargeable batteries, like Duracell Ultra and Eveready Gold batteries.  Although none of the memory cards ever reached full capacity, it would still be recommended to use 32GB SD cards or larger so fewer trips into the field are necessary.  Fewer trips into the field would mean less disturbance and potentially increased odds of observing elusive species.  To lengthen the time between visits rigging the cameras with larger batteries or, when possible, equipping solar panels to maintain power to the cameras would be advisable.

• Benevides, FL; Hansen, H and Hess, SC. 2008. Design and Evaluation of a Simple Signaling Device for Live Traps. The Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol. 72, No. 6

•Dreibelis, JZ; Locke, SL; Cathey, JC; Collier, B; and Hardin, J. 2009. Potential Uses for Trail Cameras in Wildlife Management. AgriLife Extension. Texas A&M System

• Heilbrun, RD; Peterson, MJ; Silvy, NJ and Twews, ME. 2006. Estimating Bobcat Abundance Using Automatically Triggered Cameras.. Wildlife Society Bulletin. Vol. 34, No. 1

Methods•Camera placement and Positioning: We deployed five cameras in five locations throughout the BCCER.  •Camera types and Models: Three of the cameras are property of CSU Research Foundation (2 Moultrie 1100i and 1 Moultrie i-40) and two additional cameras were purchased for this project by the study group (Stealth G42NG and Browning BTC-2XR) . Locations were chosen to balance the need for accessibility of data retrieval and probability of encountering target species.  We placed cameras at confluences of wildlife trails, in areas where animals could gain easy access to water, or would need to pass through topographic restrictions.  The locations were previewed using aerial imagery on Google Earth and ground-truthed with multiple hikes. Three of the camera locations were chosen on the eastern ridge, as to be close to road access and to allow for class involvement.  The remaining two cameras were placed on the less accessible western ridge, which could not be visited by the class.

Figure 1. Map of camera placement within the (BCCER).

•Bait: Four different types of animal attractant were tested on various camera sites: sardines, canned cat food, cougar urine, and beaver castor oil.  The first week of study the camera traps were left un-baited. Bait types were altered between cameras in order to gain a better understanding of which attracted more transient wildlife. The duration of bait placement based upon weather, consumption of the bait by wildlife, and timing of accessibility. In order to avoid conflating the effects of different baits, all baits were left in place for a minimum of seven days prior to replacement or changes in bait type.

•Battery Life and Memory Card Capacity: The ability for a camera to remain in the field with minimal visits is important practical and scientific reasons. Four of the five cameras were powered by eight standard AA batteries, the fifth Moultrie was powered by six D batteries. To test the battery life, the cameras were placed in their desired locations and left initially for seven days.  Subsequent outings were based on the amount of memory capacity on the memory card, and remaining battery life. Three types of batteries were used to determine best longevity: rechargeable batteries, Duracell ultra, and Eveready Gold batteries. Cameras were checked at varying time periods based upon accessibility and weather conditions. We used memory cards ranging in capacity from 8GB to 32GB based on availability.  

Figure 2. Camera 5 captured two Grey Foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) foraging.

Figure 3. A cinnamon coated Black Bears (Ursus americanus)was found by camera 3.

Figure 4. A group of Black-tailed Deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) found by camera 4

Figure 5. At camera 1 this image of a Mountain Lion (Puma concolor) prowling through the night.

•During the last 14 days of the study two of the cameras on the western side were switched to video mode, one at 3 second intervals and the other at 10 second intervals. We may conclude that behavioural and animal identifications are much easier under the 10 second video mode. Videos provided more detailed information about the individual animals and species. Overall videos in this study presumed to give better information about the observed animals. This is due to the fact that the delay between video segments and pictures is equal. A high quality 10mp video and picture both have a 5 second delay between the motion sensor reset. If an animal is moving at any rate of speed there was a trend to have one blurry picture with 4 consecutive blurry pictures. The video mode proved to give a larger window of observation.•It may be possible in the future to couple the cameras with software programs to identify individual animals using any unique markings on the animals.  Using at least two cameras in tandem at each location can assist with identifying unique markings and to positively identify species in less than ideal lighting conditions.  The ability to identify individuals of a species can assist researchers in making claims about animals behavior and habitat range if enough cameras are distributed through the reserve.

Figure 6. Captured by camera 2 a Bobcats (Lynx rufus).