Life on camera

Where were we?

The North York Moors covers 552² miles, that was established in 1952 by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1941. Home to the one of the largest Heather moorlands in the UK, alongside cultivated land providing timber, peat and hydrological services. 22% of the North York Moors is covered by woodland, predominantly in the North of the region consisting of a high density of ancient and veteran trees. These established woodlands of varying age from new growth to decaying dead trees can support and array of iconic British wildlife such as Red Grouse, Short-eared Owls and the regionally rare Pine Martin. The whole region is managed by North York Moors National Park Authority supported by the National Lottery Heritage Fund.

What were we conserving?

Camera traps are non-invasive methods of 24/7 monitoring of important sites of interest along with the species that would inhabit the area. Cameras are set up at knee height, secured to fixed vegetation. Triggered by a combination of a change in heat and movement; capturing either photos or videos by infrared flash, that doesn’t frighten the animals. Naturespy is a non-profitable, social enterprise providing camera trap footage to fund future research and conservation. Regionally since 2017 through the Yorkshire Pine Martin Support Programme, 1 male Pine Martin has been identified amongst the fragmented woodland, predominately seen along the edges of its known range in the Cropton forests. In small groups, 20 second video footage were analysed and recorded of what, where and when species triggered the camera. 

Camera trap design (Rankin,2019)

Why is this conservation important?

Camera traps are beneficial in highlighting broad-spectrum biodiversity surveys, identifying species which may be either known or unknown to be within the habitat. As in the case of the 1 male Pine Martin in the Dalby forest, capturing footage of elusive species in expanding their range from main populations in Scotland which would otherwise not be known to be in the area. Camera traps have been found to be 31% more effective than other detection methods, recording 91% more species as result of being non-invasive, encouraging species to perform natural behaviours, without being interrupted by human presence. Studying behaviours will increase species understanding such as reproductive/courtship and dispersal behaviour, furthermore, highlighting any management impacts and future conservation. Species such as the Red fox (figure 1) and European badger (figure 2) can be identified by their diagnostic features and recorded through GPS, creating a record of areas of interest to support populations. A limitation of camera trapping is that in-situ footage can be impacted by 50% theft and 42% decreased sensor performance, along with increased productivity of cheaper recreational units that may be used for other purposes such as hunting. Camera traps can create unmistakable evidence however, by being paired with other surveys such as DNA analysis and track counts as in the case of studying population dynamics of Pine Martins in North Yorkshire. 

 

Field notebook species identification (Rankin,2019) 

How to get involved

Targeting communities through citizen science allows everyone with different practical preference and skills to get involved. MammalsWeb collaborates footage throughout the UK; volunteers are needed to identify wildlife captured on film, with an added benefit of staying indoors allowing any age to participate and feel achievement in supporting wildlife. NatureSpy encourages people who are able-bodied, with a desire to get outdoors to assist in setting up camera traps, such opportunities are recorded from time to time so keep an eye out if you’re interested. NatureSpy relies on donations to carry out monitoring an to collaborate in projects worldwide. All efforts from funding can be seen by published success articles.

More information

• Caravaggi, A., Banks, P., Burton, A., Finlay, C., Haswell, P., Hayward, M., Rowcliffe, M. and Wood, M. (2017). A review of camera trapping for conservation behaviour research. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, 3(3), pp.109-122.

• Glover‐Kapfer, P., Soto‐Navarro, C. and Wearn, O. (2019). Camera‐trapping version 3.0: current constraints and future priorities for development. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, 5(3), pp.209-223.

• Newey, S., Davidson, P., Nazir, S., Fairhurst, G., Verdicchio, F., Irvine, R. and van der Wal, R. (2015). Limitations of recreational camera traps for wildlife management and conservation research: A practitioner’s perspective. Ambio, 44(S4), pp.624-635.

• Wearn, O. and Glover-Kapfer, P. (2019). Snap happy: camera traps are an effective sampling tool when compared with alternative methods. Royal Society Open Science, 6(3), p.181748.