Browsing by Subject "camera trapping"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Data, R Code, and Output Supporting: A “How-to” Guide for Estimating Animal Diel Activity Using Hierarchical Models
    (2024-10-22) Iannarilli, Fabiola; Gerber, Brian D; Erb, John; Fieberg, John R; jfieberg@umn.edu; Fieberg, John; Fieberg lab
    This repository contains data, code, and associated output supporting work presented in "Iannarilli F., Gerber B. D., Erb J., and Fieberg J. R. (2024). A “How-to” Guide for Estimating Animal Diel Activity Using Hierarchical Models. Journal of Animal Ecology". We provide a series of .Rmd files that can be compiled to form a step-by-step tutorial demonstrating how to quantify animal activity patterns from time-stamped data using trigonometric and cyclic cubic spline hierarchical models. These models can accommodate site-to-site variability in the frequency of site use and timing of activity, while accounting for sampling effort. The text is accompanied by a series of examples in which we address common ecological questions related to the study of animal diel activity, such as the shape of the underlying activity pattern (unimodal, bimodal, or cathemeral) and the effect of covariates or the co-occurrence of other species on activity patterns. An HTML version of this tutorial is available at https://hms-activity.netlify.app/.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Data, R Code, and Output Supporting: Evaluating species-specific responses to camera-trap survey designs
    (2020-12-14) Iannarilli, Fabiola; Erb, John; Arnold, Todd, W; Fieberg, John R; fabiola.iannarilli@gmail.com; Iannarilli, Fabiola
    These files contain data, R code and associated output supporting results presented in "Iannarilli, F., Erb, J., Arnold, T. W., and Fieberg, J. R. (2020). Evaluating species-specific responses to camera-trap survey designs. Wildlife Biology". In this paper, we assess species-specific responses by ten medium-to-large North-American carnivores to different survey design strategies commonly applied in camera-trap studies. Data were collected in northern Minnesota, USA, between 2016 and 2018 (23 337 active trap-days). We compared responses to: 1) two different survey-design frameworks (random- versus road-based), 2) two different lure types (salmon oil versus fatty acid scent oil), 3) two different placement strategies (completely random versus randomly-selected sites with feature-based placement), 4) survey timing (spring versus fall) and 5) temporal trends in daily encounter probabilities. Our results show that even species morphologically and taxonomically similar respond differently to survey-design strategies, and, thus, species-specific responses to design choices should be carefully considered in camera trap studies focused on multiple species.