1.0 Background#
Effectively managing and conserving wild species and their habitats requires an understanding of species’ distributions, population levels and habitat requirements, along with knowledge of the factors that may threaten their long-term survival.
Remote cameras (also referred to as “wildlife cameras” or “camera traps”) are a valuable tool for detecting a wide range of wildlife species (Burton et al., 2015; Lahoz-Monfort & Magrath, 2021; O’Connell et al., 2011a). While they are most commonly used to monitor medium to large-sized mammals, they have also been used to detect small mammals (e.g., Lazenby et al., 2015; Mills et al., 2016; Tschumi et al., 2018) and birds (e.g., Kruger et al., 2018; Lynch et al., 2015; Randler & Kalb, 2018; Suwanrat et al., 2015).
Remote cameras consist of a digital camera with an external flash and/or passive infrared (PIR) detector (sensor) (see Lahoz-Monfort & Magrath, 2021; Rovero et al., 2013 for detailed reviews). Cameras can be triggered through different means (e.g., mechanical triggers, active infrared sensors); PIR detectors followed by time-lapse triggers are most commonly used (Welbourne et al., 2016). The camera is triggered when motion is sensed within the camera’s detection zone and the infrared sensor registers a difference in infrared radiation above a certain threshold emitted from an object’s surface (e.g., animal fur; Welbourne et al., 2016). Cameras may capture images or video based on the user settings. The resulting images or videos are stamped with the date and time. Date and time stamps are valuable because they provide a permanent spatial and temporal record of wildlife occurrences.
Remote cameras have been used to measure presence / absence (e.g., Kucera & Barrett, 2011), relative abundance (e.g., Carbone et al., 2001), density of marked (e.g., Karanth et al., 2006) and unmarked (e.g., Becker et al., 2022) animals, population composition (age/sex ratios; e.g., Duquette et al., 2014), species richness / diversity (e.g., Ahumada et al., 2011), habitat use / distribution (e.g., Bowkett et al., 2008; O’Connell et al., 2006; Whittington et al., 2019), diel / seasonal activity patterns (e.g., Frey et al., 2017), individual breeding status (e.g., Fisher et al., 2014; Muhly et al., 2011), and behaviour (e.g., Holinda et al., 2020; Murray et al., 2016).
There are several advantages to using remote cameras over other inventory methods, including their ability to continuously collect data (images or video) for multiple species simultaneously in a cost-effective and non-invasive fashion (Kucera & Barrett, 2011; O’Brien, 2011; Steenweg et al., 2017). The advantages of remote cameras have led to a large increase in their use over time and the growing need to standardize survey methods (and metadata reporting) (Fisher & Burton, 2012; Steenweg et al., 2017).
These guidelines were developed by the Alberta Remote Camera Steering Committee (RCSC) in collaboration with the Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (ABMI) and Wildlife Cameras for Adaptive Management (WildCAM). The Alberta RCSC and B.C. Advisory Committee (WildCAM; https://wildcams.ca/about-us/) are remote camera experts from academia, government and not-for-profit organizations who aim to advance the science of remote camera monitoring and research while facilitating collaboration and sharing knowledge among users in western Canada.
These guidelines are intended to be a “living document” that will be updated as new information becomes available. At a minimum, they will be reviewed on an annual basis.