Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Camera‐trapping is considered a cost‐efficient method to monitor wildlife, but relevant performance constraints remain. We assessed performance and cost‐benefit for 2 recent technological innovations: (i) a wireless transmission system where cameras communicate in a network, and (ii) using solar panels as a camera's sole power supply. The maximum distance between cameras that ensured wireless connection varied between 2 km in open habitats and 335 m in forest habitats with dense tree cover. The cost of using the wireless transmission system was lower for surveys run for >45 days and for >15 sampling units (i.e., camera‐trap sites). For surveys longer than 15 days, using the wireless transmission system required, on average, 8 fewer days of fieldwork. We measured the performance of the solar panels in terms of capture probability, and the solar‐powered cameras (β = −0.015 ± 0.01 in the log scale) outperformed battery‐powered cameras (β = −0.103 ± 0.005) as capture rate decreased more slowly, particularly for nighttime events (difference in capture probability of the solar‐powered relative to the battery‐powered cameras at night, β = 0.09 ± 0.01). We consider that, although camera‐traps with wireless transmission can provide a return on investment for a wide range of survey designs, the constraints on maximum distance for transmission are a limitation. Despite the higher cost, we recommend solar‐powered camera‐traps as they had improved performance with a higher proportion of species events captured than by battery‐powered cameras.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barros et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: