Listening and watching : do camera traps or acoustic sensors more efficiently detect wild chimpanzees in an open habitat?
MetadataShow full item record
1. With one million animal species at risk of extinction, there is an urgent need to regularly monitor threatened species. However, in practice this is challenging, especially with wide‐ranging, elusive and cryptic species or those that occur at low density. 2. Here we compare two non‐invasive methods, passive acoustic monitoring (n=12) and camera trapping (n=53), to detect chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in a savanna‐woodland mosaic habitat at the Issa Valley, Tanzania. With occupancy modelling we evaluate the efficacy of each method, using the estimated number of sampling days needed to establish chimpanzee absence with 95% probability, as our measure of efficacy. 3. Passive acoustic monitoring was more efficient than camera trapping in detecting wild chimpanzees. Detectability varied over seasons, likely due to social and ecological factors that influence party size and vocalisation rate. The acoustic method can infer chimpanzee absence with less than ten days of recordings in the field during the late dry season, the period of highest detectability, which was five times faster than the visual method. 4. Synthesis and applications: Despite some technical limitations, we demonstrate that passive acoustic monitoring is a powerful tool for species monitoring. Its applicability in evaluating presence/absence, especially but not exclusively for loud call species, such as cetaceans, elephants, gibbons or chimpanzees provides a more efficient way of monitoring populations and inform conservation plans to mediate species‐loss.
Crunchant , A-S , Borchers , D , Kühl , H & Piel , A 2020 , ' Listening and watching : do camera traps or acoustic sensors more efficiently detect wild chimpanzees in an open habitat? ' , Methods in Ecology and Evolution , vol. 11 , no. 4 , pp. 542-552 . https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13362
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
Copyright © 2020 British Ecological Society. This work has been made available online in accordance with publisher policies or with permission. Permission for further reuse of this content should be sought from the publisher or the rights holder. This is the author created accepted manuscript following peer review and may differ slightly from the final published version. The final published version of this work is available at https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13362
DescriptionThis work was supported by the Primate Society of Great Britain through the Cyril Rosen Conservation Grant. Long term funding for ongoing research at Issa is supported by the UCSD/Salk Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny (CARTA).
Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.