Effectiveness of camera trapping Vis-à-vis live trapping for sampling terrestrial small-mammal communities

A comparison of the effectiveness of camera trapping and live trapping for sampling terrestrial small-mammal communities
Natasha De Bondi , John G. White , Mike Stevens , Raylene Cooke 

Wildlife Research 37(6)

I just read a very interesting paper about the comparison of the effectiveness of camera trapping and live trapping for sampling terrestrial small-mammal communities

Camera-trap technologies are being increasingly used for surveys of medium to large terrestrial mammals. The authors content that the method also have significant applications for broad-scale surveys of small mammals.


In this study the researchers tried to compare results from camera-trapping surveys to those of the more traditional live-trapping techniques. The aim was to test the effectiveness of the techniques for detecting species, and the cost effectiveness of both approaches.


Surveys were conducted in 36 sites in the Grampians National Park, Victoria, Australia, between April and July 2009. A combination of Elliot and cage trapping and camera trapping were tried. 
Results were compared for both their ability to generate small-mammal presence data and their cost effectiveness.
Camera-trapping surveys compared favourably with those of live-trapping surveys. Similar species were detected across the sites. Camera trapping was definitely more cost effective than live trapping.


The researchers signs off saying “camera-trapping surveys of small terrestrial mammals may provide a new and cost-effective technique for surveying terrestrial small mammals.  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”.