Cost-effectiveness of lures in attracting mammals: a large scale camera-trapping field test on European species

IF 1.8 3区 生物学 Q3 ECOLOGY European Journal of Wildlife Research Pub Date : 2024-08-28 DOI:10.1007/s10344-024-01840-0
Alessio Mortelliti, Riccardo Bergamin, Paola Bartolommei, Ilaria Greco, Emiliano Manzo, Francesco Rovero, Federica Fonda
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness of lures in attracting mammals: a large scale camera-trapping field test on European species","authors":"Alessio Mortelliti, Riccardo Bergamin, Paola Bartolommei, Ilaria Greco, Emiliano Manzo, Francesco Rovero, Federica Fonda","doi":"10.1007/s10344-024-01840-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":51044,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Wildlife Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Wildlife Research","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-024-01840-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The 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.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
诱饵吸引哺乳动物的成本效益:对欧洲物种进行的大规模相机诱捕实地测试
在照相机诱捕调查中,很少有人对不同引诱剂的成本效益进行评估。为了填补这一知识空白,我们(1)比较了一系列引诱剂在探测欧洲广泛分布的哺乳动物方面的效果;(2)通过计算达到特定监测目标的相关成本,评估了这些引诱剂的成本效益。我们在意大利中部和北部的四个研究区域进行了大规模野外实验,包括从低地森林到高山山毛榉林的各种环境。我们重点比较了以下几种低成本且容易获得的引诱剂:沙丁鱼、花生酱、一种商业引诱剂,并使用不使用引诱剂的照相机作为对照,收集了一系列小型到大型哺乳动物的数据。我们发现,在 13 个目标物种中,有 7 个物种的可探测性随所使用的引诱剂类型而变化。具体来说,沙丁鱼被证明是对犬科动物和豪猪最有效的引诱剂,花生酱对鼬科动物最有效,但狍子却避而远之,而商业引诱剂对红鹿最有效。通过功率分析和成本函数分析,我们能够显示出不同方法在成本效益方面的显著差异,有时甚至高达数万欧元,这有力地强调了选择是否使用引诱剂以及使用何种引诱剂的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
68
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: European Journal of Wildlife Research focuses on all aspects of wildlife biology. Main areas are: applied wildlife ecology; diseases affecting wildlife population dynamics, conservation, economy or public health; ecotoxicology; management for conservation, hunting or pest control; population genetics; and the sustainable use of wildlife as a natural resource. Contributions to socio-cultural aspects of human-wildlife relationships and to the history and sociology of hunting will also be considered.
期刊最新文献
Hunting bag statistics of wild mammals in Portugal (1989–2022): on the need to improve data report and compilation Observation of threatened pinyon jays Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus in the EU pet market as a potential additional threat Dietary differences in males and females of a strongly sexually dimorphic ungulate Understanding the patterns and predictors of human-elephant conflict in Tamil Nadu, India Two neotropical spotted felids in the Nevado de Toluca Volcano? The highest altitude records
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1