Author:
Mortelliti Alessio,Bergamin Riccardo,Bartolommei Paola,Greco Ilaria,Manzo Emiliano,Rovero Francesco,Fonda Federica
Abstract
AbstractThe cost-effectiveness of different attractants during camera trapping surveys has been seldom evaluated. To contribute in filling this knowledge gap we (1) compare the effectiveness of a suite of attractants in detecting widely distributed mammals in Europe and (2) evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these attractants, by calculating the costs associated to reach a specific monitoring objective. We conducted a large-scale field experiment across four study areas in central and northern Italy, encompassing a variety of environments, from lowland forest to alpine beech forest. We focused on comparing the following low cost and readily available attractants: sardines, peanut butter, a commercial lure and we used a camera with no attractant as control, collecting data on a suite of small to large mammals. We found that for seven of our 13 target species detectability varied with the type of attractant used. Specifically, sardines proved to be the most effective attractant for canids and the porcupine, peanut butter was most effective for mustelids but was avoided by the roe deer, whereas the commercial lure was the most effective with red deer. Through a power analysis combined with a cost function analysis we were able to show striking differences in the cost-effectiveness of the different methods, sometimes in the order of magnitude of tens of thousands of euros, which strongly emphasizes the critical importance played by the choice of whether to use an attractant or not and the type of attractant to be used.
Funder
Università degli Studi di Trieste
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference37 articles.
1. Avrin AC, Pekins CE, Sperry JH, Allen ML (2021) Evaluating the efficacy and decay of lures for improving Carnivore detections with camera traps. Ecosphere 12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3710
2. Ballari SA, Barrios-García MN (2014) A review of wild boar Sus scrofa diet and factors affecting food selection in native and introduced ranges. Mamm Rev 44:124–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12015
3. Boitani L, Lovari S, Vigna Taglianti A (2010) Mammalia III Carnivora, artiodactyla. Edagricole
4. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and Multimodel Inference, 2nd edn. Springer-, New York, New York
5. Buyaskas M, Evans BE, Mortelliti A (2020) Assessing the effectiveness of attractants to increase camera trap detections of north American mammals. Mamm Biol 100:91–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42991-020-00011-3