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.

Cost-effectiveness of lures in attracting mammals: a large scale camera-trapping field test on European species / Mortelliti, Alessio; Bergamin, Riccardo; Bartolommei, Paola; Greco, Ilaria; Manzo, Emiliano; Rovero, Francesco; Fonda, Federica. - In: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE RESEARCH. - ISSN 1612-4642. - ELETTRONICO. - 70:(2024), pp. 90.0-90.0. [10.1007/s10344-024-01840-0]

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

Greco, Ilaria;Rovero, Francesco;
2024

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.
2024
70
0
0
Mortelliti, Alessio; Bergamin, Riccardo; Bartolommei, Paola; Greco, Ilaria; Manzo, Emiliano; Rovero, Francesco; Fonda, Federica
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in FLORE sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificatore per citare o creare un link a questa risorsa: https://hdl.handle.net/2158/1394818
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
social impact