Scholarlink

<p>Monitoring small mammal populations can provide essential insights into broader ecosystem health; however, survey methods can be difficult and time-consuming, with traditional options often involving live trapping. Trail cameras are increasingly used to monitor small mammals, offering a non-invasive method to collect data on species such as voles, mice, and shrews. We compared two camera trap housing designs, the Littlewood Box (selfie-style images) and the novel BucketBuddy (top-down images) across clay and sandy soils at a rewilded site in Lincolnshire, UK, over five continuous weeks (720 total trap days). BucketBuddy traps produced higher than predicted detections across all family groups, with significantly greater vole and shrew detections, while mice detections were evenly distributed. Soil type alone did not significantly affect detections, although Littlewood boxes performed better than expected on sand. Sandy soils supported greater diversity for both Shannon and Simpson indices, with BucketBuddy on sand achieving the highest diversity, while BucketBuddy on clay recorded highest overall counts. Both designs are suitable for citizen science, but their use should reflect monitoring goals, with the BucketBuddy recommended for vole and shrew-focused studies. These findings support camera trapping as a practical, low-cost method for citizen science monitoring of small mammals in the UK.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Which non-invasive camera trap housing is best suited for citizen science monitoring of small mammals?

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月15日

查看全文
  • Georgia Fletcher,
  • Rebekah Gibbins,
  • Graziella Iossa

摘要

Monitoring small mammal populations can provide essential insights into broader ecosystem health; however, survey methods can be difficult and time-consuming, with traditional options often involving live trapping. Trail cameras are increasingly used to monitor small mammals, offering a non-invasive method to collect data on species such as voles, mice, and shrews. We compared two camera trap housing designs, the Littlewood Box (selfie-style images) and the novel BucketBuddy (top-down images) across clay and sandy soils at a rewilded site in Lincolnshire, UK, over five continuous weeks (720 total trap days). BucketBuddy traps produced higher than predicted detections across all family groups, with significantly greater vole and shrew detections, while mice detections were evenly distributed. Soil type alone did not significantly affect detections, although Littlewood boxes performed better than expected on sand. Sandy soils supported greater diversity for both Shannon and Simpson indices, with BucketBuddy on sand achieving the highest diversity, while BucketBuddy on clay recorded highest overall counts. Both designs are suitable for citizen science, but their use should reflect monitoring goals, with the BucketBuddy recommended for vole and shrew-focused studies. These findings support camera trapping as a practical, low-cost method for citizen science monitoring of small mammals in the UK.