title

Organization of observations near underground shelters of burrowing carnivorans: a comparison of different methods

author(s)

Nataliia Brusentsova (orcid: 0000-0002-1428-4855)
Volodymyr Yarotskiy (orcid: 0000-0001-5648-6642)

affiliation

Tuzlivski Lymany National Nature Park (Tatarbunary, Ukraine)
Slobozhanskyi National Nature Park (Krasnokutsk, Ukraine)
Kreminski Lisy National Nature Park (Kreminna, Ukraine)

bibliography

Theriologia Ukrainica. 2021. Vol. 22: 100–110.

DOI

language

Ukrainian, with English summary, titles of tables, captures to figs

abstract

Observations near the burrows gives rich material on the biology, intraspecific and interspecific interactions, and individual behaviour of animals. In our work, we considered four methods of observation (visual observations, visual observations with photo-fixation, video surveillance, and camera trapping) of burrowing carnivorans near their underground shelters. The research was conducted in spring and summer in different years in the period from 2004 to 2021 in open and forest habitats near burrows of badgers (Meles meles Linnaeus, 1758) and foxes (Vulpes vulpes Linnaeus, 1758).Visual observations are always associated with the presence of humans near the underground shelter of burrowing carnivorans for a long period of time. The researcher can be present only at one burrow at a time. The advantages of this method are that it is simple, cheap and allows for observing not only the burrow, but also the surrounding area. Complementing the data of visual observations with photographs largely increases their scientific value and informativeness. The use of camera traps minimizes human impact on animal behaviour, covers more underground shelters (depending on the number of devices) and collects more concentrated material than other methods. Camera trapping and video surveillance is also more convenient for the researcher, especially during the round-the-clock collection of data. This method however requires significant material costs and time to review and sort materials before data analysis. Data collection is limited to the working area of devices that do not always have time to capture animals when they pass very quickly. It is important under different environmental conditions to choose the optimal method of observation in order to study the animals effectively. In open biotopes during the organization of observations, there are difficulties with the installation of photo- and video equipment and its camouflage. In our opinion, the method of visual observations with photo-fixation remains relevant in conducting research near underground shelters of burrowing carnivorans under such conditions. The method of camera trapping is optimal for forest biotopes.

keywords

Meles meles, Vulpes vulpes, burrow, shelter, observation, burrowing carnivorans.

references

Ferreiro-Arias, I., J. Isla, P. Jordano, A. Benitez-Lopez. 2021. Fine-scale coexistence between Mediterranean mesocarnivores is mediated by spatial, temporal, and trophic resource partitioning. Ecology and Evolution, 11 (22): 15520-15533. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8077
Fiderer, C., T. Gottert, U. Zeller. 2019. Spatial interrelations between raccoons (Procyon lotor), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), and ground-nesting birds in a Special Protection Area of Germany. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 65: 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-018-1249-z
Findlay, M. A., R. A. Briers, P. J. C White. 2020. Component processes of detection probability in camera-trap studies: understanding the occurrence of false-negatives. Mammal Research, 65: 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13364-020-00478-y
Formozov, A. N. 1989. Pathfinder's companion. Publishing house of Moscow State University, Moscow, 1–320. [In Russian]
Gashchak, S., Gulyaichenko, Y., Beresford, N. A., Wood, M. D. 2017. European bison (Bison bonasus) in the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone (Ukraine) and prospects for its revival. Proceedings of the Theriological School, 15: 58–66. http://doi.org/10.15407/ptt2017.15.058
Ivanova, G. I. 1963. The experience of census of foxes, badgers and raccoon dogs in burrows in the Voronezh reserve. Resources of the fauna of game animals in the USSR and their accounting. Publishing USSR Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 164–167. [In Russian]
Jumeau, J., Petrod, L., Handrich, Y. 2017. A comparison of camera trap and permanent recording videocamera efficiency in wildlife underpasses. Ecology and Evolution, 7: 7399–7407. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3149
Kluever, B. M., E. M. Gese, S. J. Dempsey, R. N. Knight. 2013. A comparison of methods for monitoring kit foxes at den sites. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 37 (2): 439–443. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.261
Koval, N. 2017. The wildcat (Felis silvestris) in the Uzhansky National Nature Park (Eastern Carpathians). Proceedings of the Theriological School, 15: 105–110. http://doi.org/10.15407/ptt2017.15.105
Macdonald, D. W., C. D. Buesching, P. Stopka, J. Henderson, S. A. Ellwood, S. E. Baker. 2004. Encounters between two sympatric carnivores: red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and european badgers (Meles meles). Journal of Zoology, 263 (4): 385–392. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836904005400
Meek, P. D., G. A. Ballard, J. Sparkes, M. Robinson, B. Fleming, P. J. S. Nesbitt. 2019. Camera trap theft and vandalism: occurrence, cost, prevention and implications for wildlife research and management. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, 5 (2): 160–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.96
Meia, J.-S., J.-M. Weber. 1992. Characteristics and distribution of breeding dens of the Red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in mountainous habitat. Z. Saugetierk., 47: 137–143.
Newey, S., P, Davidson, S., Nazir. G. Fairhurst, F. Verdicchio, R. J., Irvine, R. van der Wal, 2015. Limitations of recreational camera traps for wildlife management and conservation research: A practitioner’s perspective, Ambio. 44: 624–635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0713-1
Novikov, G. A. 1949. The field studies of the terrestrial vertebrate ecology. Sovetskaya Nauka, Leningrad, 1–602. [In Russian]
Nowak, M. R. 2005. Walker`s carnivores of the world. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, London, 1–313.
Nowakowski, K., A., Wazna, P. Kurek, J. Cichocki, G. Gabrys. 2020. Reproduction success in European badgers, red foxes and raccoon dogs in relation to sett cohabitation. PLoS ONE, 15 (8): e0237642. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237642
O’Connell, A. F., J. D. Nichols, Karanth, K. U. 2011. Camera Traps in Animal Ecology. Springer, 1–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-99495-4
Palencia, P., J. Vicente, R. C. Soriguer, P. Acevedo. 2021. Towards a best-practices guide for camera trapping: assessing differences among camera trap models and settings under field conditions. Journal of Zoology, 316 (3): 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12945
Reichman, O. J., S. C. Smith. 1990. Burrows and burrowing behaviour by mammals. Current Mammalogy, Plenum Press, New York and London, 197–244.
Rich, L. N., C. L. Davis, Z. J. Farris, D. A. W. Miller, J. M. Tucker, et al. 2017. Assessing global patterns in mammalian carnivore occupancy and richness by integrating local camera trap surveys. Global Ecol Biogeography, 26 (8): 918–929. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12600
Rovero, F., F. Zimmermann, D. Berzi, P. Meek. 2013. "Which camera trap type and how many do I need?" A review of camera features and study designs for a range of wildlife research applications. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy, 24 (2): 148–156. https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-24.2-8789
Rozhnov, V. V., N. V. Sidorchuk. 2016. Behavioural ecology of badgers. Experience in data collection by means of phototraps. KMK Scientific Press Ltd, Moscow, 1–104. [In Russian]
Rukovskiy, N. N. 1991. Four-footed shelters. Agropromizdat, Moscow, 1–143. [In Russian]
Ruzhilenko, N. S., A. L. Prodchenko. 1998. Territorial distribution, ecology and number of the Badger in the Kaniv Nature Reserve. Nature Reserves in Ukraine, 4 (1): 61–65. [In Ukranian]
Sarmento, P., J. Cruz, C. Eira, C. Fonseca. 2009. Evaluation of camera trapping for estimating Red fox abundance. Journal of Wildlife Management, 73 (7): 1207–1212. https://doi.org/10.2193/2008-288
Scheibe, K. M., K. Eichhorn, M. Wiesmayr, B. Schonert, O. Krone. 2008. Long-term automatic video recording as a tool for analysing the time patterns of utilisation of predefined locations by wild animals. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 54: 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-007-0108-0
Stewart, P. D., S. A. Ellwood, D. W. Macdonald. 1997. Remote video surveillance of wildlife — an introduction from experience with the European Badger Meles meles. Mammal Review, 27 (4): 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.1997.tb00448.x
Swinnen, K. R. R., J. Reijniers, M. Breno, H. Leirs. 2014. A novel method to reduce time investment when processing videos from camera trap studies. PloS ONE, 9 (6): e98881. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098881
Wearn, O. R., P. Glover-Kapfer. 2019. Snap happy: camera traps are an effective sampling tool when compared with alternative methods. Royal society open science, 6: 181748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181748
Wilson, G., R. Delahay. 2001. A review of methods to estimate the abundance of terrestrial carnivores using field signs and observation. Wildlife Research, 28 (2): 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR00033
Wright, H. W. Y. 2006. Paternal den attendance is the best predictor of offspring survival in the socially monogamous bat-eared fox. Animal Behaviour, 71: 503–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.03.043