See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326843134

Camera trap monitoring: A new protocol for German national parks? -

Assessment of a test run of a new monitoring standard for the acquisition of
presence/absence data, relative det...

Thesis · July 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 30

2 authors:

Étienne Vergne Carolin Klangwald

Hogeschool Van Hall Larenstein, Netherlands; Leeuwardern Hogeschool Van Hall Larenstein, Leeuwarden, Netherlands
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Étienne Vergne on 06 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Camera trap monitoring:
A new protocol for German national parks?
-
Assessment of a test run of a new monitoring standard for the acquisition of
presence/absence data, relative detection & absolute abundances,
carried out in Hunsrück-Hochwald Nationalpark
Written by:
Carolin Klangwald
Etienne Vergne
 Research Report
Bachelor Thesis Project

Camera trap monitoring:

A new protocol for German national parks?

Assessment of a test run of a monitoring standard for the acquisition of

presence/absence data, relative detection & absolute abundances,
carried out in Hunsrück-Hochwald Nationalpark

Students:
Carolin Klangwald 000005195
Etienne Vergne 000004947

Tutors:
Henry Kuipers
Martijn Weterings

Independent Tutor:
Wimke Crets-Fokkema

Commissioner:
Dr. Ulf Hohmann

Van Hall Larenstein

University of Applied Sciences

Leeuwarden
July, 2018
 Summary

Because of the current use of different methods and the focus on varying species, population sizes
and species distribution are often not comparable between national parks. To solve this, a new
monitoring procedure for medium to large sized mammals using camera traps was tested in the
national park Hunsrück-Hochwald, with 57 camera traps being systematically spread over the park.
In the scope of our bachelor thesis, we evaluated the first test run of this procedure and tested if it is
possible to gather information on presence/absence of species, as well as get accurate estimates on
absolute abundance and relative detection, which prove reliable when compared to validated
monitoring protocols. To investigate possible influences on the results and find suggestions for
improvements, we furthermore investigated how surrounding habitat characteristics, like vegetation
or location features such as streets, could have impacted encounter rates. We focused our research
questions about abundances and detection rates on the five most commonly photographed species,
which were roe deer, wild boar, red deer, red foxes and wild cats. To answer the questions regarding
presence and absence of species as well as the abundances, we evaluated 15.000 photographs that
resulted from the first test-run in 2017, by determining the photographed species and sorting them
into encounters with a 30-minute interval. For the presence/absence, it was investigated if those
species that were expected in the park, based on previous sightings, had been captured with the
cameras or not. By using a Random Encounter Model, we furthermore estimated numbers for the
absolute abundance for the five species mentioned. The relative detection was calculated as the
ratio of the individuals found of one species, to the community seen as all individuals found. To give
answer on the influence of the habitat characteristics and location features on the encounter rates,
field visits were conducted to the 57 camera plots, during May 2018. In the field, plant species in a
20 m radius around each camera were recorded as well as the distance to location features. A
principal component analysis was carried out to group correlated habitat characteristic variables,
resulting in three new variables. With the use of a Generalized Linear Model in SPSS, relationships
between the encounter rate of each of the five species and habitat characteristics and location
features were investigated. Our results showed that 14 out of 16 expected mammalian species could
be captured during the test run. Roe deer made up the largest proportion of individuals found with
35,2%, while wild boar with 27,9% took the second largest relative detection. Absolute numbers for
roe deer (11,421/km²) and red deer (2,507/km²), diverted from those of previous years, however
accurate number for both of them were last estimated in 2014 and 2012, respectively. Since there
were no numbers available for wild boar and red foxes, these estimates could not be compared. For
wild cats the same number of 65 individuals for the whole area was estimated as in a previous study
in 2017. For red deer and roe deer, it was found that the encounter rate would increase significantly
when the surrounding area had a lot of ground to medium height vegetation like young trees and
berry shrubs, while the encounter rate of wild boar would increase when the camera was deployed
in beech forest. The encounter rate of red foxes increased in an area with very dense tall vegetation,
while none of the habitat characteristics seemed to have an influence on the encounter rate of wild
cats. Looking at the location features, it was found that the encounter rate of roe deer was higher
when the camera was close to a residential area, while it was low for wild boar and red deer when
the surrounding included a path or a road. To get better estimates on absolute abundances, we
recommend the use of videos with time stamps including seconds. Since the new standard aims to
not give preference to a certain species, and there is no single habitat characteristic or location
feature which would have influenced the encounter rate of all species, we think that the systematic
approach is suitable for this method. Because of the lack of data to compare the numbers for
abundances in the park, we recommend to also use another monitoring method to validate the
results. We see it furthermore as recommendable to carry out the test run in a different national
park as well, where abundances for species are better known.

Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1. Problem description and background..................................................................................... 5
1.2. Goal ......................................................................................................................................... 6
1.3. Research questions ................................................................................................................. 6
1.4. Semantic Clarification ............................................................................................................. 6
2. Materials & Method........................................................................................................................ 7
2.1. Study area ............................................................................................................................... 7
2.2. Study design ............................................................................................................................ 7
2.3. Data-collection ........................................................................................................................ 8
2.4. Data-preparation .................................................................................................................... 9
2.5. Data-analysis ......................................................................................................................... 10
3. Results ........................................................................................................................................... 11
3.1. Presence & Absence.............................................................................................................. 11
3.2. Relative Detection ................................................................................................................. 12
3.3. Absolute Abundance ............................................................................................................. 12
3.4. Influence of Habitat Characteristics...................................................................................... 13
3.5. Influence of Location Features.............................................................................................. 14
4. Discussion...................................................................................................................................... 15
4.1. Presence & Absence.............................................................................................................. 15
4.2. Relative Detection ................................................................................................................. 15
4.3. Absolute Abundance ............................................................................................................. 16
4.4. Influence of Habitat Characteristics...................................................................................... 17
4.5. Influence of Location Features.............................................................................................. 17
5. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 19
6. Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 19
7. Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................... 20
8. References .................................................................................................................................... 21
Appendix
1. Introduction
1.1. Problem description and background
In 2016, a study of wildlife monitoring methods in German national parks revealed shortcomings in
the current monitoring procedures of parks (Ehrhart, et al., 2016). The study showed that, not only
did the used methods differ from park to park, but the parks also focused on different species, which
makes comparison of population sizes and presence of species between parks difficult, and thus may
be an obstacle when working on common goals for stable population sizes, reintroduction or
conservation across park boundaries (Kemkes, Maly-Wischhof, Tscherniak, Wesemüller, &
Diepolder, 2008). Often the monitoring was restricted to red deer which are of high interest for
national parks (Ehrhart, et al., 2016), due to their browsing pressure on seedlings and other
vegetation (Gill & Beardall, 2001). Other species, such as roe deer, were often neglected (Ehrhart, et
al., 2016). Furthermore, the current use of sampling methods that are less precise or have a larger
bias, for example feces counting, can lead to inaccurate numbers (Ehrhart, et al., 2016).
Information on population sizes has a direct influence on management decisions based on the goals
national parks may have, such as forest rejuvenation, and are therefore linked to management
actions like an increase or decrease in shooting quotas (Ehrhart, et al., 2016).
In addition, according to §24 of the “Bundesnaturschutzgesetz” (Federal Act for the Protection of
Nature), German national parks must contribute to the monitoring of ecosystems, including species
and natural processes (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz, 2018).
To tackle these discrepancies, the national park “Hunsrück-Hochwald” takes part in the development
of a new nationwide standard procedure for wildlife monitoring in German national parks. For this
goal the use of camera traps was recommended (Ehrhart, et al., 2016). Their use for wildlife
management and conservation is broad and ranges from the gathering of presence/absence data to
surveying rare species behaviour (Caravaggi, et al., 2017; Burton, et al., 2015). They are a non-
invasive tool that creates less human disturbance compared to direct field observations and can
collect data 24 hours a day. Pictures and videos make it furthermore possible to identify species
accurately afterwards, rather than directly on site, which then allows for consults from other
experts. The results may also be used to estimate abundances (Palei, Pradhan, Sahu, & Nayak, 2015).
The monitoring standard is meant to give information about presence/absence on a range of
mammals, given they are large enough to trigger the cameras (Schneider, Hohmann, & Sega, 2017).
However, regarding relative detection and absolute abundances, the focus is on medium to large
sized mammals ranging upwards from 5 kg. The populations sizes of these species are especially
important, as they are most likely to be directly influenced by management actions, such as shooting
etc., and are also of symbolic importance as species which attract tourism and visitors (NABU, 2018).
While absolute abundances are the most informative, they are also the most difficult to estimate.
Relative detection is therefore hoped to be a more quick and easy indicator of trends.
Having said that, before the monitoring standard can be implemented in German national parks it
needs to be assessed if it does yield accurate results, or if the method must still be optimized.
On that account a test run for the new procedure was carried out in the national park “Hunsrück-
Hochwald”. 57 cameras were set up from April to November of 2017, distributed systematically over
the entire park area (Schneider, et al., 2017) (Appendix V). Based on the collected data, estimates
were made, and the results compared to previous monitoring protocols, including genotyping,
counts with infrared and floodlights (Gräber, Ronnenberg, Strauß, & Siebert, 2015). Estimations of
absolute abundance and relative detection were carried out for the five most commonly
photographed species, which included the game species roe deer, red deer and wild boar, as well as
the charismatic predators’ wild cats and red foxes. Previous studies showed that the positioning and
location of camera traps in the field can influence the detection of species (Kolowski & Forrester,

5
2017), which can lead to biased results (Di Bitetti, Paviolo, & De Angelo, 2014).
Cameras set up close to a location feature like a road or a path often detect more species, than
cameras off track (Blake & Mosquera, 2014), while habitat characteristics like the type of habitat and
vegetation are also known for influencing the picture rate (Larrucea, Brussard, Jaeger, & Barrett,
2007). The effect such features and characteristics may have had on the obtained data was
investigated so that it can be taken into consideration for future set ups. This report will give insight
into the results found, based on the data obtained and what factors may have influenced those, and
moreover the conclusions drawn from this for the enhancement of the standard procedure.

1.2. Goal
1. The first goal was the evaluation of the accuracy of the obtained results from the test run for
presence/absence data, as well as relative detection as ratio between species and absolute
abundance, in comparison to estimates based on previous monitoring protocols.
2. The second goal was to explore the possible relation and influence of habitat characteristics, such
as vegetation type and structure, as well as location features, like paths or fences, on the detection
of species by the camera traps.

1.3. Research questions

1. What is the difference between the estimates made based on the test run in 2017 and
estimates drawn from previous monitoring protocols regarding presence/absence data,
relative detection and absolute abundances?
1.1 For which species was it not possible to detect their otherwise known presence during the
monitoring period?
1.2 What is the difference between the relative detection of species monitored during this test-
run in comparison to each other?
1.3 What is the difference between the absolute abundance for the species monitored during
this test-run and the absolute abundance known from previous estimates?

2. What is the relation between habitat characteristics and location features of the camera
plots to the results found?
2.1 What is the relation of the characteristics of the habitat in which the cameras were set up,
to the detection of the species photographed during the test run?
2.2 What is the relation of the location features to the detection of the species photographed
during the test run?

1.4. Semantic Clarification

Presence/absence data: Data based on the presence of a species in a certain area, or lack thereof, at
time of observation (Manel, Williams, & Ormerod, 2001)
Absolute abundance: The number of individuals per species (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 2018)
Relative abundance: : Refers to the proportion each species represents of all individuals in a
community, Pi=ni/N (Campbell, et al., 2014), community being all individuals present in the area
Relative detection: Proportion a species makes up of all individuals photographed
Medium-sized mammals: Mammal species ranging from 5 kg to 45 kg bodyweight (Quansah, 2011)
Habitat Characteristics: Complexity and diversity of flora and other natural traits of a habitat,
which may influence species and communities living in it (Komyakova, 2009)
Location features: Attributes in an environment such as paths, fences or game trails
Encounter rate: Referring to the picture rate as ratio of photographs to camera trapping time (total
pictures/trapping days) (Rovero & Marshall, 2009)

6
2. Materials & Method
2.1. Study area
The national park Hunsrück-Hochwald, is located in the south-
west of Germany (49°42'20.7"N 7°06'13.3"E) (Figure 1).
Since 2015, the 10.000-hectare large area is classified as
national park (Ministerium der Justiz, 2014). It stretches from
the province “Rheinland-Pfalz” to the adjacent province
“Saarland” in the south (Nationalpark Hunsrück-Hochwald,
2018a). The area is divided into three different zones, the
“nature dynamic zone”, the “development zone” and the
“maintenance zone”, which are all managed differently
(Bundesamt für Naturschutz, 2018a). In the “nature dynamic
zone”, which makes up 33% of the total park area, nature
basically takes its course and is not managed at all (Bundesamt
für Naturschutz, 2018a). At the same time, the 42% of the park
that are classified as “development area” are slowly
transformed from coniferous forest to the original deciduous
forest (Bundesamt für Naturschutz, 2018a). Once the
management reaches that goal, the “development zone” will be

part of the “nature dynamic zone”, which then will make up 75% Figure 1 - Location of NP Hunsrück Hochwald in Germany,
of the park area (Nationalpark Hunsrück-Hochwald, 2018b). (creative commons, 2015)
Finally, the remaining 25% of the “maintenance zone” (Bundesamt für Naturschutz, 2018a) are used
as a buffer zone for the national park,
containing most visitor facilities and developed paths, as well as for the production of wood
(Nationalpark Hunsrück-Hochwald, 2018b). The national park also contains several small villages and
townships, which causes some potential for conflict, regarding the rules or restrictions that came
with the establishment of this still relatively young national park three years ago (Weiß, 2013).
The most common terrestrial mammalian species known to occur in the area include next to red
deer (Cervus elaphus), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) and wild boar (Sus scrofa). The national park is
also one of the largest remaining habitats of the protected European wild cat (Felis silvestris)
(Bundesamt für Naturschutz, 2018b).

2.2. Study design

The assessment of the method used for this test-run is a non-experimental survey research (Kumar,
2011b), since we collected data about the setup and described the possible influence of it on the
results. To determine which species were present or absent and to estimate the relative and
absolute abundances of the species found, data in form of pictures from 2017 was analyzed and
compared to existing data, which gave this research the character of a retrospective study (Kumar,
2011c). We carried out a cross-sectional study (Kumar, 2011d), with all of the 57 camera plots
(Figure 3) being visited once in the field for data collection in the time from April to May 2018.
As the habitat type or location features did not change over the course of the study, one visit was
sufficient.

7
 2.3. Data-collection
The pictures which were analyzed to gather information for the first three research questions
regarding presence/absence, absolute abundance and relative detection, had already been taken
and were accessible to us. There were 15.000 in total. Data noted for each picture included: date,
time, species (for wild animals the zoological name, otherwise “human” or “pet”), number of
animals per species, if possible age group as juvenile (0-12 months) or adult, and if possible the sex.
To answer question 2.1 and 2.2, field visits to the 57 camera plots were conducted to collect data
about habitat characteristics and location features.
These were gathered in separate field forms (Appendix III & IV) for a 40m diameter around the
camera trap, with the trap functioning as center, so that 20m in each direction were included (Figure
2). The distance was measured with a laser measuring device and marked of with tape.
For the habitat characterization, the following information was gathered in the field: date, plot
number, coordinates in the UTM32-system, habitat type, percentage of canopy cover and overall
ground cover measured in four ordinal classes (0-25%; 15-50%; 50-75%; 75-100%), percentage of
ground cover by each type of plant and by species that are of high forestal and zoological
importance, both in four ordinal categories (not present;<10% ;10-50%; >50%).
In addition to the percentages in classes, more precise numbers for each plant species or type were
guessed by both researchers and compared between them to avoid observer bias.
The canopy cover was measured by using a mirror with a drawn-on grid of 10x10 squares, which is
placed horizontally facing upwards above the camera. The percentage was then calculated as
number of squares covered, divided by the total number of squares, and this taken times 100
(Portland State University, 2018). As this represents only a small part of the plot which can be
misleading, a second approximate value was guessed for overall cover.
For the location features, the date, number of the plot and coordinates in UTM32 were noted. For
each feature, which are water bodies, paths/roads, rock formations, fences and wild paths, presence
or absence inside the plot were noted, as well as distance to the camera in meters.
The order in which the plots were visited was based on accessibility and weather conditions. Each
visit took approximately one hour, as the cameras were about 2 km apart (Figure 3).

Figure 2 – Data-collection plot around

camera trap (C. Klangwald, 2018)

8
Figure 3 - Location of camera traps (A. Prüssing, 2017)

2.4. Data-preparation
To answer question 1.1, a list of expected species was created based on sightings in the area, which
were collected on public platforms such as “Naturgucker” (Appendix I). Sightings were summed up
and connected to locations in the park according to a grid system. The standard is focused on
medium and large sized mammals, yet all mammals were included to test if larger species were
pictured more frequently or if small species would trigger the cameras at all. For questions 1.2 & 1.3,
the camera trap pictures were seen through manually and all information was filled into a
spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel 2016. Several pictures of the same animals were valued as separate
encounters if they were more than 30 min apart (O´Brien, Kinnaird, & Wibisono, 2003). If a series of
pictures was taken of a group, the picture with most individuals showing at the same time was used
to determine group size. The spreadsheet was transferred into SPSS, with each row representing one
encounter, including the date, time, species (Roe deer=1; Red deer=2; Wild boar=3; Fox=4; Wild
cat=5; Badger=6), number of animals per species, age group (juvenile=1 (0-12 months), adult=2,
both= 3, unknown=4) and the sex or sexes (female=1; male=2; both=3, unknown=4). For the habitat
characterization for question 2.1, the data gathered in field forms from the visits to the camera plots
were filled into a second spreadsheet in Excel and transferred into SPSS, whereby one row
represented one camera plot. The data was coded as follows: The exact percentages for Canopy
cover, ground cover, as well as the presence of plants or plant groups was used and worked with as
a ratio variable. Some habitat types were found too rarely to statistically have an impact. Therefore,
they were grouped into Beech forest, Coniferous forest and Others, with each type being assigned a
number (Beech forest=1, Moor/Birch forest=2, Coniferous=5) and used as nominal variable. The data
collected for question 2.2 included some features which were rarely or never found in the field, so
they were not used for analysis. This included cliff walls, fences and game trails. The features
ultimately kept were distance to buildings, roads/paths and water.

9
The distances within the 20m radius were compared and completed by using measuring tools in
Geographic Information System software program ArcMap 10.5 by ESRI. Here, distance of the
cameras to location features that were outside of the 20m area radius were measured and added to
the second spreadsheet. The encounter per camera for each species individually as well as the
number of trapping days for each camera were included in the spreadsheet as well.

2.5. Data-analysis
To answer question 1.1, the expected species list was modified to include whether the species was
recorded during the monitoring or not. For each species the IUCN status was added, as well as the
status in Germany, which can be quite different. Statuses were “0” for extinct, “1” for threatened
with extinction,”2” for critically endangered, “3” for endangered, “G” unknown extend of threat, “R”
for extremely rare, “V” for early warning, “D” for limited data, “*” for not threatened and “/” not
𝑛𝑖
listed or not assessed (Table 1). For question 1.2, the formula 𝑝𝑖 = 𝑁
was used to calculate relative
detection with numbers of photographed individuals for each species (ni) divided by the total
number of individuals photographed (N). Confidence intervals were calculated, using the following
formula:
𝑝𝑖 ∗ (1 − 𝑝𝑖 )
𝑝𝑖± 1,96 ∗ √( )
𝑁
Whereby 𝒑𝒊 is the fraction of one species to the entire number of individuals counted and N is the
total number of individuals photographed. 1,96 refers to the Z-score/normal-score, which is
the corresponding limit value for the normal distribution, when choosing a 95% confidence interval.
For Question 1.3, the absolute abundances for the five species were calculated with a Random
Encounter Model (Carbone, Field, Rowcliffe, & Turvey, 2008). The following formula was used:
𝑦 𝜋
𝐷= ∗
𝑡 𝑣𝑟 ∗ (2 + 𝜃)
With D being the density per camera, y the encounter per camera, t the number of days out in the
field for each camera respectively, v the daily distance moved per species in km, r the effective
sensing distance in km and  the angle of detection in radian. It was not possible to retrieve average
movement speed from the pictures to calculate the daily distance moved, so reference data was
used (Keuling, 2018). To minimize any impact on the estimations we aimed to use data from similar
habitats (Table 3). After calculating the density per camera, the overall density per species in the
area was calculated, using the following equation:
(∑𝐷)∗𝑔
𝐷𝑠 =
𝑁𝑠
Ds is the overall density per species in the area, ∑ 𝐃 the sum of the diversity of all cameras, g the
mean group size derived from the pictures and Ns the number of camera traps within the trial area s.
Confidence intervals for the absolute abundances were then calculated as follows:
𝐷𝑠 ± 1,96 ∗ 𝑆𝐸𝐷𝑠
With SEDS as the standard error of the overall density per species in the area. SEDS was calculated by
using a formula that included the variance of y/t, v, r and 𝜽. For y/t the variance was calculated with
bootstrapping, while v & r were obtained from the reference data. The variance 𝜽 of was zero.
Calculation were done for roe deer, red deer and wild boar, wild cat and red foxes. Data about the
effective sensing distance of these species was not possible to gather from the pictures, however
reference values from similar habitats were used (Hofmeester , Rowcliff, & Jansen, 2016). Average
group size and the detection distance and angle of the camera traps were gathered from the
pictures and set-up. Data for comparison came from surveys carried out with infrared cameras,
floodlights and genotyping for red deer and roe deer (Gräber, et al., 2015) and wild cats (Prüssing,
Ebert, Schneider, & Segatz, 2018). No numbers are known for wild boar and red fox populations.

10
For question 2.1 a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was carried out to cluster the habitat
variables into groups. To compensate for over dispersion in the Poisson GLM, a Negative Binomial
Generalized Linear Model was used to investigate if the picture rate of the cameras was related to
the habitat and location in which they were placed. For each of the five most commonly
photographed species mentioned in question 1.2, a separate model was created. Habitat type was
used as a factor. The clustered vegetation variables obtained from the PCA were used as covariates
for question 2.1., as well as the distance to nearby roads and paths, buildings and water bodies for
question 2.2, which were standardized. Number of encounter per species per camera functioned as
dependent variable, with the ln of trapping days being used as offset variable. Variables which were
highly insignificant were removed and a new model created. The Akaike Information Criterion (AIC)
was used to compare the new model with the old one. The model with the lowest AIC value was
selected. Insignificant variables were removed from the model until the old model had a lower AIC.

3. Results
3.1. Presence & Absence
14 out of 16 expected mammalian species based on previous sightings (Appendix I) were identified
on photographs (Table 1). Of the recorded species, three are currently listed as endangered on the
German Red List (Haupt, Gruttke, Binot-Hafke, Otto, & Pauly, 2009). These are the European Wild
Cat, the European Hare and the Pine Marten. One species is listed as near threatened on the IUCN
Red List, which is the European Hare. Mammals above 2 kg were recorded more often than smaller
ones. 11 species of birds were found, yet as these were not the focus they are listed in Appendix II.
Table 1 - Expected and recorded mammalian species sorted by body mass with status in Germany and international IUCN
status, where LC- Least Concern, NT-Near Threatened, *-not threatened, 3-Endangered, G-extend, /-not listed or assessed,
V-early warning

Status Body massa Encounter

Species Scientific IUCNb Recorded?
in Ga (kg) Number
Red Deer Cervus elaphus * LC Yes 160-205 563
Wild Boar Sus scrofa * LC Yes 90-180 528
Roe Deer Capreolus capreolus * LC Yes 15-22 1215
Badger Meles meles * LC Yes 7-17 38
European Wild Cat Felis silvestris 3 LC Yes 2-7 45
Red Fox Vulpes vulpes * LC Yes 6 395
European Hare Lepus europaeus 3 LC Yes 4-5 32
European Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus V NT Yes 1,5-2 2
Stone Marten Martes foina V LC Yes 1,2-2 7
Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus / LC No 1,3-1,8 0
Pine Marten Martes martes 3 LC Yes 0,9-1,7 22
Polecat Mustela potorius V LC Yes 0,4-1,7 1
European Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus * LC Yes 0,5-1,5 5
Eurasian Red Squirrel Sciurus vulgaris * LC Yes 0,2-0,4 30
-2 -2
Hazel Dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius G LC No 1,5E -3,5E 0
Bank Vole Myodes glareolus / LC Yes 1,2E-2-3,5E-2 3
a
(Deutsche Wildtier Stiftung, 2018)
b
(IUCN, 2017)

11
 Table 2 - Relative detection with percent’s each species
represents of all individuals photographed as community,
3.2. Relative Detection using 57 camera traps, (n=3722)
Roe deer took the highest percentage of individuals detected Species Rel. detection 95% C.I.
with 35,2% (Table 2). The second highest number were wild 33,0-37,0%
Roe Deer 35,2%
boar., followed by red deer. While red foxes made up 10,6%,
Wild Boar 27,9% 26,0-29,0%
wild cats reached the lowest percentage of the 5 species in
Red deer 19,3% 18,0-20,0%
focus. The other species individually were all below 1%, they
Red Fox 10,6% 9,0-12,0%
were added combined as 5,8%. These were mainly of badgers,
martens, hares, squirrels and birds (Appendix I & II). Wild Cat 1,2% 0,7-1,3%
Other 5,8% 5,0-6,4%

3.3. Absolute Abundance

Values used for the Random Encounter Model (Table 3) were partially obtained directly from the
collected data, such as encounter rate and detection angle. No standard error was found for
detection angle, as this may have been impaired by a wrongful set-up (Appendix V).
Daily distance moved, and detection distance were obtained from external data (Keuling, 2018;
Hofmeester, et al., 2016).
Table 3 - Variables used to calculate the absolute abundance with the Random Encounter Model

Roe deer Wild Boar Red deer Red Fox Wild Cat
Encounter Rate ± SE 𝑦 0,017 ± 0,047 ± 0,049 ± 0,038 ± 0,004 ±
(encounters per day) 𝑡 9,0E-3 5,3E-3 9,4E-3 8,4E-3 8,0E-4
Daily Distance Moved ± SE 2,150 ± 4,472 ± 3,542 ± 6,590 ± 1,829 ±
(km per day) v 0,130 0,628 0,257 0,946 0,184
Detection Distance ± SE 0,005 ± 0,006 ± 0,008 ± 0,004 ± 0,003 ±
(km) r 5,0E-5 7,0E-5 6,0E-5 1,1E-4 1,2E-4
Detection Angle (radian) θ 0,960 0,960 0,960 0,960 0,960

Table 4 - Densities with 95% confidence intervals for the

We estimated a density of 11,42 roe deer/km² (Table five most commonly photographed species
4). For the 10.000-hectare area of the park this would
Species Density Estimates 95% C.I.
mean an abundance of 1142. For wild boar a density of
3,51/km² amounts to 351 animals. Red deer reached an Roe Deer 11,42/km² 9,27-13,58
abundance of 251, while foxes had 160 individuals in Wild Boar 3,51/km² 2,86-4,15
the park. Wild cats reached the lowest abundance with Red deer 2,51/km² 1,72-3,29
65 individuals. Red Fox 1,60/km2 0,90-2,31
Wild Cat 0,65/km² 0,36-0,95

12
 3.4. Influence of Habitat Characteristics
A Principal Component Analysis was carried out to find correlations between the variables collected
for habitat characteristics (Table 5).
Table 5 – Principal Component Analysis with 11 vegetation variables resulting in 3 new variables which account for 67% of
the total variance among habitat characteristic variables. Habitat characteristics that strongly correlated are written in
bold.

Variables PC 1 PC 2 PC 3
Eigenvalues (%) 4,39 (39,91) 1,61 (14,59) 1,43 (12,99)
Canopy Cover at Camera 0,847 -0,015 -0,018
Canopy Cover Total 0,828 -0,353 -0,204
Trees higher than 2m 0,820 0,057 -0,109
Ground Cover -0,676 0,664 0,117
Moss -0,650 0,474 0,044
Sweet Grass -0,144 0,895 -0,207
Trees lower than 2m -0,030 0,629 0,225
Berry shrubs -0,131 0,564 0,488
Fern 0,061 0,110 0,822
Sedges -0,313 -0,057 0,751
Herbaceous Seed plants -0,079 0,421 0,427

The PCA resulted in three new variables explaining 67% of

the total variance among habitat characteristics (Table 5).
The first principal component (PC 1) was interpret as “tall
vegetation layer”, as it strongly positive correlated both
values for canopy cover and trees higher than 2 meters, as
well as negatively correlated with ground cover and moss.
The second principal component (PC 2) was interpret as
“ground to medium vegetation layer”, as it positively
correlated low growing vegetation like sweet grass and
herbaceous seed plants, to vegetation that reaches a medium
height like berry shrubs and trees below 2 meters. The third
principal component (PC 3) was interpret as “ground
vegetation layer”, because it correlated ferns, sedges and
herbaceous seed plants, thus plant types that grow close to
the forest floor.

Figure 4 - Vegetation Layers interpreted from the PCA,

(Flyers Travel Agency, 2018)
The generalized linear model revealed that the PC 2
component (ground to medium vegetation layer) had a significantly positive relation with the
encounters of roe deer (Wald χ2(1) = 13,60,
p= 0,001) (Table 6) which means that as the proportion of ground to medium sized vegetation grew
by 1 standard deviation (SD), the numbers of roe deer encounters increased with a factor of 1,34,
which is 34,1%. For PC 3 an increase of 15,4% per 1SD was found. For wild boars, the numbers of
encounters increased by 138%, if the camera was setup in beech forest, compared to coniferous
forest.

13
 For red deer it was found that the number of encounters would decrease with 78,4%, if the camera
was setup in moor or birch forest, compared to coniferous forest (Wald χ2(1) = 7,36, p= 0,008). An
increase of 1SD for PC 2 resulted in an increase of 95,8% of red deer encounters. Red fox encounters
would decrease with 73,8%, if the camera was setup in moor or birch forest compared to coniferous
forest. Furthermore, was it found that an increase PC1 by 1SD meant an increase in fox encounters
by 54,6%. None of the habitat characteristics had a significant effect on wild cat encounters.
Table 6 - Odds ratio (Exp(B)) between habitat, the three habitat characteristic variables resulting from the PCA and the
number of encounters for each of the five most commonly photographed species with 95% Confidence interval in brackets.

Variables Roe Deer Wild Boar Red Deer Red Fox Wild Cat
1,21ns 2,39** 0,88ns 1,01ns 0,60ns
Beech Forest
(0,83-1,77) (1,39-4,09) (0,33-2,36) (0,38-2,66) (0,18-2,01)
Habitata
0,80ns 1,81ns 0,22** 0,26* 0,33ns
Moor/Birch Forest
(0,49-1,29) (0,91-3,61) (0,07-0,67) (0,08-0,91) (0,05-2,10)
0,83ns 1,55*
PC 1 - - -
(0,55-1,25) (1,02-2,34)
1,34*** 1,15ns 1,96***
PC 2 - -
(1,15-1,57) (0,92-1,45) (1,38-2,79)
1,15* 0,84ns 1,24ns 1,22ns
PC 3 -
(1,01-1,32) (0,69-1,03) 0,91-1,69) (0,82-1,81)
*significant at p < 0,05; **strongly significant p < 0,01; ***highly significant at p < 0,001; ns not significant at p > 0,05
- is not in the final model because highly insignificant
a: coniferous forest was used as reference variable for habitat

3.5. Influence of Location Features

Roe deer were found to be significantly negative influenced by distance to buildings
(Wald χ2(1) = 5,45, p= 0,020), which meant that as the distance to buildings increased for 1 SD, the
number of encounters decreased by 16,1% (Table 7). For wild boar the correlation of distance to
paths and roads was significantly positive and meant an increase per SD of 26,3%. Red deer
encounters were also significantly influenced by this and increased by 45,9%. None of the location
features showed a significant effect on encounters with red foxes or wild cats.
Table 7 - Odds ratio (Exp(B)) between the distance to location features and the number of encounters for each of the five
most commonly photographed species with a 95% confidence interval in brackets l

Standardized Variables Roe Deer Wild Boar Red Deer Red FoxWild Cat
Distance to Water - - - - 0,91ns
(0,58-1,41)
Distance to Path or Road 1,08ns 1,26* 1,46* 1,15 ns
1,24ns
(0,94-1,24) (1,06-1,51) (1,04-2,04) (0,85-1,55) (0,81-1,90)
Distance to Building 0,84* 1,08ns - 0,92ns -
(0,72-0,97) (0,87-1,33) (0,64-1,33)
*significant at p < 0,05; **strongly significant p < 0,01; ***highly significant at p < 0,001; ns not significant at p > 0,05;
- is not in the final model because highly insignificant

14
4. Discussion
4.1. Presence & Absence
Based on the pictures it could not only be listed which species were recorded, but also be
demonstrated which species, that would have been expected could not be proven to be present
(Appendix I). Even though the close net of camera traps heightens the chances of capturing most
species at least once, the list should not be assumed to be exhaustive. Elusive or less numerous
species could still be missed by chance. Overall picture rates decline with a decrease in body mass
(Table 1). The fact that species below 2kg were rarely recorded shows that the standard is more
suitable for the medium to large sized mammals, as intended. This is likely the reason the hazel
dormouse and the muskrat were not recorded and doesn’t necessarily prove their absence.
Exceptions are squirrel and pine marten, which may be because they are more active above ground
on the trees. Having said this, the fact that all 14 out of 16 expected mammals were captured on the
pictures shows that there is a well-developed image of which species the park currently holds. A
positive finding was that one species was found, which is listed as near threatened on the IUCN red
list, as well as three species listed as endangered on the German red list. This may be of interest
when focusing management efforts directly on supporting threatened species.

4.2. Relative Detection

The value for relative detection is in this case based on the animals caught on pictures as
community. It is therefore not necessarily a representation of reality of the entire forest community,
which would be the relative abundance, but should only be seen as an indicator of ratios. It is meant
to be a basic tool for easy comparison between years and parks without much calculation needed.
As the main aspect of a standardized monitoring is to always use the exact same procedure with the
same effort, it is reasonable that changes in found proportions over the years would indicate
changes in the actual population sizes or activity (Schneider, Hohmann, & Sega, 2017). In this case,
we cannot yet make any comparisons between years or parks, so the real value of this information
will only become clear after more frequent use. For this test run, the largest proportion of
individuals photographed was roe deer followed by wild boar. This is in line with the REM estimates
for absolute abundance in which the highest numbers were estimated for roe deer, followed by wild
boar. It should be kept in mind that the relative detection as it is now, also includes possible double
counting’s of individuals. A comparison of relative detection to relative abundances could give
further insight into the reliability of this value as indicator for actual changes in populations. For this
however it would be necessary to either calculate absolute abundances for every species found in
the forest, or base calculations for relative abundance on a limited number of species as a
community.

15
 4.3. Absolute Abundance
Monitoring by genotyping resulted in approximately 65 wild cats being said to be present within the
park (Prüssing, Ebert, Schneider, & Segatz, 2018). Our calculations lead to the same estimate of 65
individuals. Higher numbers were found for roe deer, which were found at a density of 6,5/km² (C.I.
6,1-7,2) in 2014 (Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt, 2015). We found a value of 11,421 roe deer/km²
(C.I. 9,27-13,58), with confidence intervals not overlapping, compared to 2014. Yearly flashlight
counting’s, partially inside and around the national park indicated a steady increase in numbers over
the past years, which would support this finding (Forschungsanstalt für Waldökologie und
Forstwirtschaft Rheinland-Pfalz, 2018). In contradiction, the density of red deer in 2012 was said to
be at 8,5/km² (C.I. 6,4-11,3) (Ebert, Sandrini, Hohmann, & Thiele, 2016), while the REM gave a value
of 2,507 /km² (C.I. 1,72-3,29), which is a difference, even considering 5 years lying between those
estimates. Yearly flashlight counting, and the shooting quotas remained the same in the national
park over the past three years (Nationalpark Hunsrück-Hochwald, 2015-2017), while numbers
increased in other regions (Vetter & Walter, 2017). The huge difference in our estimate may be
biased by use of movement speed values which were not similar enough to the value in this
territory. No reliable numbers for comparison are known for foxes and wild boar, wild boar
populations especially tend to fluctuate strongly (Melis, Szafranska, Jedrzejwska, & Barton, 2006).
The estimated abundances could thus not be validated. Previous studies working with the REM, used
videos to gather values for species movement speed (Rahman, Gonzalez, & Aulagnier, 2017).
A sensitivity analysis revealed that changes in movement speed (daily distance moved) had a strong
influence on the calculated density (Appendix VI), so it is quite possible that more accurate values
would have led to more representative estimates. While the estimates for abundances of roe deer
and red deer differ from those of previous years, the estimate of wild cats is exactly the same,
probably because the used reference values for movement speed were gathered in the same
habitat. The current set-up includes pegs for indication of 5 and 10 meters distance to the camera.
Additionally, pegs could also be placed to the sides, to indicate how far an animal is moving through
the field of view (Figure 5). The use of videos with time stamps including seconds, in addition to the
now used hours and minutes, could then make the daily distance moved per species more easy to
determine. This could be done by calculating an average movement speed per hour and then adding
this up by the average hours of activity per
species. The accuracy of group size
determination might also be improved by this.
With large groups moving around the camera
and spreading over series of pictures, it was
sometimes difficult to establish an exact
number of individuals. With videos it might be
possible to follow individuals moving in and
out of the field of view. Results were less
sensitive to changes in groups size, than they
were for changes in movement speed
(Appendix VI). Because of a wrongful set-up
during the test run (Appendix V), it is not
certain if the usual angle and distance of
detection was impaired, however results Figure 5 - Possible extend to set-up with "a" being the camera trap, "b"
being the field of view, "c" being the currently used pegs for 5 and 10
were not sensitive to changes in angle and
meters distance, and "d" being the suggested additional pegs for 5-
detection distance, so even if the values meter sideways indication
were different it would not have made a

16
strong difference for the estimates.

4.4. Influence of Habitat Characteristics

PC 1 grouped canopy cover at the camera trap, canopy cover total and trees above 2m, in addition
to moss and ground cover. These last two are negatively correlated to the rest as in general the
denser the canopy cover was, the lower was the ground cover because less light reached the forest
floor (Vickers & Palmer, 2000). The other groups were correlated based on similar height of growth.
Previous studies showed that the distribution of roe deer is influenced by food availability (Cibien &
Sempere, 1989). PC 2 grouped vegetation smaller than 2 meters, which includes main food sources
for roe deer such as berry shrubs and young trees (Jackson, 1980). PC 3 grouped herbaceous seed
plants like clover, which can be part of the roe deer’s diet as well (Jackson, 1980). Even though wild
boar are opportunistic omnivores, which’s diets are based on food availability (Schley & Roper,
2003), beech nuts can make up a great part of it (Baubet, Bonenfant, & Brandt, 2004). This could
explain why the encounter rate of wild boars was higher in beech forest, than in coniferous forest.
Those also often include oaks, which’s fruits are favored as well (Baubet, Bonenfant, & Brandt,
2004), making the beech forest an attractive habitat. Red deer prefer forest habitats (Romportl, et
al., 2017), which may be why the number of red deer encounters was higher in the coniferous forest,
compared to moorland. Their distribution is also considerably influenced by their diet of ground
vegetation and young leaves of shrubs and small trees (Krojerova-Prokesova, Barancekova, Sustr, &
Heurich, 2010), as reflected in the strong correlation with PC 2. Since the number of encounters of
red foxes decreases if the camera was set up in a wet and open habitat like moor compared to
coniferous forest, we assume that red foxes prefer dense forested habitats, as illustrated by previous
findings (Cagnacci, Meriggi, & Lovari, 2004), because of the greater availability of for instance,
suitable denning sites. Red foxes favour those habitats with dense canopy cover (Cavallini & Lovari,
1994), which would clarify why we found a significant relation between the number of encountered
red foxes and PC 1. Since no correlations were found between the encounters of wild cats and any of
the habitat characteristic variables, we assume that other factors like the abundance of prey like
mice, or shelter opportunities, might be of more influence (Sarmento, Cruz, Tarroso, & Fonseca,
2006).

4.5. Influence of Location Features

The fact that wild boar and red deer were encountered more often the further away from paths and
roads a camera was set up, might be due to disturbance avoidance (Jiang, Zhang, & Ma, 2007).
Disturbance can be caused by cars, even if most of the forest roads are closed to public cars they are
still used by rangers and hunters. In addition, many are frequently used by visitors accompanied by
dogs, sometimes running freely, as leashes are not mandatory (Weston & Stankowich, 2014).
This may be especially disturbing to animals which are regularly hunted. In other studies, red deer
were found to avoid roads even at low traffic burdens (Meisingset, Leo, Brekkum, van Moorter, &
Mysterud, 2013). Roe deer encounters decreased with heightened distance to buildings or
residential areas. Possible explanations may be found in foraging and vigilance behavior of this
species, which can often be seen standing and feeding at forest edges where they can utilize high-
quality resources available in bordering agricultural areas, while remaining in proximity of protective
cover (Torres, Virgos, Panzacchi, Linnell, & Fonseca, 2012). Such areas are often close to residential
areas where forest is cleared for agricultural fields and pasture. It shows that especially the game
species are in one way or another influenced in their habitat use by human disturbance and this had
an impact on the detection rates. Even though we found significant relationships between some of
the habitat characteristics or location features and the encounter rate of some of the species, one
characteristic or feature that would have influenced all the encounter rates was not found. That

17
underlines that each species has its own preferred habitat, where it is more likely to be
photographed.
The sampling with the camera traps should therefore include a large variety of different habitats,
habitat characteristics and location features, to capture as much species as possible, as it was the
aim of the original setup (Schneider, et al., 2017). To ensure that all habitats are covered, a random
stratified sampling might be more appropriate (Hill, Fasham, Tucker, Shewry, & Shaw, 2005a). On a
macro level like habitat type, a stratified sampling could be useful when all the location of all the
different habitats in the national park are known. However, it is presumably more difficult to apply a
stratified sampling on a micro level, for instance based on the percentage of different plant types
like berry shrubs. On the other hand, this require a lot of preparatory work, even more so when the
locations of the different strata are not known beforehand (Hill, et al., 2005a). This is a disadvantage
since the new monitoring standard should be easily applicable for each national park. If the main
interests lie on a certain species, a stratified sampling could help to focus on the species preferred
habitat characteristics or location features, at least on a macro level.
With the current use of a systematic sampling with a small grid (figure 3) it is to be assumed that all
different habitats are covered. Still, it should be kept in mind that spatial correlation is a possible
problem which can occur with systematic sampling, when there are features which repeat
throughout connected plots (Hill, Fasham, Tucker, Shewry, & Shaw, 2005b). In this case we found no
such problems during data exploration, yet it might occur in other parks with different a landscape.

18
5. Conclusion
Based on the evaluation of the results for question 1.1 we conclude that this method is useful to get
a general idea of presence and absence of species. Covering the entire area of a park in a tight
systematic net of camera traps for a prolonged period the way it was done now made it possible to
capture 89% of mammalian species in focus, without selection for a certain habitat or location.
While this is a good basis, it must be kept in mind that the list of species proven to be present should
not be assumed to be exhaustive. The comparison of proportion of individuals found per species for
question 1.2 is a quick and easy indicator over time periods or between areas yet should not be the
basis of decision making as it does not necessarily reflect accurate changes in populations and can be
prone to double counting of individuals. Roe deer made up the largest proportion of photographed
species, followed by wild boar, red deer, red fox and last wild cats. For question 1.3, necessary
information for estimates of absolute abundance, such as movement speed, is crucial yet cannot be
obtained from only looking at the pictures without indication of time including seconds. More
accurate values for those would result in more accurate estimates. Estimates for roe deer and red
deer differed from those of previous years, while estimates for wild boars and red foxes could not be
validated. The same abundance for wild cat was estimated as in another study in 2017. Since the
results of question 2.1 and 2.2 showed that there was no single habitat characteristic or location
feature which had an influence on all of the five species we looked at, the systematic set-up which
likely includes all types of habitat present in the park is appropriate when aiming to get an extensive
overview of all species. If in the future the aim would be to get more reliable information on a
certain species, a stratified set-up would be useful, which can be based on our findings of influences
on this specific species´ detection.

6. Recommendations
In our opinion, the monitoring standard holds a lot of potential, which is currently not being
exploited to its fullest. We would support keeping the systematic sampling method for a complete
overview of the park. For the relative detection we suggest it should be compared to relative
abundances drawn from comparison of absolute numbers to see if indications of changes are
correct. Absolute abundances could be calculated in a more reliable fashion through some additions
to the current set-up. As solution we recommend the additional usage of videos of, for example, 30
seconds, with a time stamp including hours, minutes and seconds to provide useful material.
This would be of value for the determination of movement speed as well as for the more reliable
recognition of group sizes. To further support this, the pegs currently used for indication of 5 and 10
meters distances to the camera, could be complemented by indicators to each side to see how far an
animal is moving through the field of view, without having to rely on natural surroundings for
reference. After achieving more accurate measurements for these values, the monitoring should be
conducted several consecutive years to make it possible to compare results between periods to
check for similarity or differences within realistic fluctuations.
Still, we also see it as recommendable to at least once validate the numbers by simultaneously using
estimation techniques which are known to be accurate in the same area at the same time.
As the Hunsrück-Hochwald is still a young park with less years of previous research, it might also be
of interest to have a test run in another park, where population numbers are better known and data
for comparison is available. Once the suggested changes are implemented, it could prove to be a
useful tool to get a regular overview developments and changes in a park.
It could form an information basis on which park authorities can more easily communicate and build
their management and goals around, as well as plan more precise and focused research on.

19
7. Acknowledgements
We would firstly like to thank our commissioner Ulf Hohmann, the FAWF and the Nationalpark
Hunsrück-Hochwald for giving us this opportunity and offering this project to us.
Furthermore, to Cornelia Ebert for her helpful suggestions and support.
Also, to Annina Prüssing and Oliver Keuling for their additional input and providing data to us, which
was essential for a big part of this project.
Our special thanks goes to our tutors Henry Kuipers and Martijn Weterings for their extensive
feedback and always making an effort to provide us with the necessary guidance.

20
8. References
Baubet, E., Bonenfant, C., & Brandt, S. (2004). Diet of the Wild Boar in the French Alps. Galemys, 16,
101-113. Retrieved June 2018, from http://www.secem.es/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/Galemys-16-NE-008-Baubet-101-113.pdf

Blake, J., & Mosquera, D. (2014). Camera trapping on and off trails in lowland forest of eastern
Ecuador: does location matter? Mastozoología neotropical, 21. Retrieved March 2018, from
http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0327-93832014000100003

Bundesamt für Naturschutz. (2018a). Nationalparke. Retrieved February 2018, from

https://www.bfn.de/themen/gebietsschutz-grossschutzgebiete/nationalparke.html

Bundesamt für Naturschutz. (2018b). Wildkatze (Felis silvestris). Retrieved February 2018, from
https://ffh-anhang4.bfn.de/arten-anhang-iv-ffh-richtlinie/saeugetiere-sonstige/wildkatze-
felis-silvestris.html

Bundesnaturschutzgesetz. (2018). Ziel des Nationalparks. Retrieved March 2018, from

http://www.naturschutzrecht-online.de/naturschutzrecht/schutzgebiete/5-3-
nationalparke/5-3-2-ziel-des-nationalparks

Burton, A., Neilson, E., Moreira, D., Ladle, A., Steenweg, R., Fisher, J., . . . Boutin, S. (2015). Wildlife
camera trapping: a review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 52, pp. 675-685. Retrieved February 2018, from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12432/full

Cagnacci, F., Meriggi, A., & Lovari, S. (2004). Habitat selection by the red fox "Vulpes vulpes" (L.
1758) in an Alpine area. Ethology Ecology and Evolution, 16, 103-116. Retrieved June 2018,
from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316880902_Habitat_selection_by_the_red_fox_
Vulpes_vulpes_L_1758_in_an_Alpine_area

Campbell, N. A., Reece, J. B., Urry, L. A., Cain, M. L., Wasserman, S. A., Minorsky, P. V., & Jackson, R.
B. (2014). Biodiversity and Communities. In Biology - A Global Approach (Vol. 10, p. 1288).
Retrieved March 2018

Caravaggi, A., Banks, P., Burton, A., Finlay, C., Haswell, P., Hayward, M., . . . Wood, M. (2017). A
review of camera trapping for conservation behaviour research. Remote Sensing In Ecology
and Conservation, 3, pp. 109-122. Retrieved February 2018, from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rse2.48/full

Carbone, C., Field, J., Rowcliffe, J., & Turvey, S. (2008). Estimating animal density using camera traps
without the need for individual recognition. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45. Retrieved March
2018, from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-
2664.2008.01473.x

Cavallini, P., & Lovari, S. (1994). Home range, habitat selection and activity. Acta Theriologica, 39,
279-287. Retrieved June 2018, from http://rcin.org.pl/Content/12292/BI002_2613_Cz-40-
2_Acta-T39-nr30-279-287_o.pdf

Cibien, C., & Sempere, A. (1989). Food Availability as a Factor in Habitat Use by Roe Deer. ACTA
THERIOLOGICA, 34, 111-123. Retrieved June 2018, from
http://rcin.org.pl/Content/11365/BI002_2613_Cz-40-2_Acta-T34-nr7-111-123_o.pdf

21
Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt. (2015). Vergleichende Analyse verschiedener Methoden zur
Erfassung von freilebenden Huftieren. Retrieved June 2918, from
https://www.dbu.de/OPAC/ab/DBU-Abschlussbericht-AZ-30413.pdf

Deutsche Wildtier Stiftung. (2018). Wildtiere. Retrieved June 2018, from

https://www.deutschewildtierstiftung.de/wildtiere

Di Bitetti, M., Paviolo, A., & De Angelo, C. (2014). CAMERA TRAP PHOTOGRAPHIC RATES ON ROADS
VS. OFF ROADS: LOCATION DOES MATTER. Mastozoología Neotropical, 21, pp. 37-46.
Retrieved March 2018, from
http://ri.conicet.gov.ar/bitstream/handle/11336/27983/CONICET_Digital_Nro.54cc7115-
5c81-4240-b7e5-af974c7de6a4_A.pdf?sequence=2

Ebert, C., Sandrini, J., Hohmann, U., & Thiele, B. (2016). Nicht-invasieves genetisches Monitoring von
Huftieren - Ein Überblick am Beispiel des Rotwilds aus drei verschiedenen
Untersuchungsgebieten. Retrieved June 2018

Ehrhart, S., Lang, J., Simon, O., Hohmann, U., Stier, N., Nitze, M., . . . Schraml, U. (2016). Bundesamt
für Naturschutz "Wildmanagement in deutschen Nationalparken". Retrieved February 2018,
from https://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/BfN/service/Dokumente/skripten/Skript434.pdf

Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. (2018). Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved March 2018, from
Components of species diversity: species richness and relative abundance:
https://www.britannica.com/science/biogeographic-region/Components-of-species-
diversity-species-richness-and-relative-abundance#ref588342

Flyers Travel Agency. (2018). Plant Life - Temperate Deciduous Forest. Retrieved June 2018, from
https://flyerstravel.weebly.com/plant-life.html

Forschungsanstalt für Waldökologie und Forstwirtschaft Rheinland-Pfalz. (2018). Unpublished data.

Retrieved June 2018

Gill, R., & Beardall, V. (2001). The impact of deer on woodlands: The effects of browsing and seed
dispersal on vegetation structure and composition. Retrieved March 2018, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31227942_The_impact_of_deer_on_woodlands
_The_effects_of_browsing_and_seed_dispersal_on_vegetation_structure_and_composition

Gräber, R., Ronnenberg, K., Strauß, E., & Siebert, U. (2015). Vergleichende Analyse verschiedener
Methoden zur Erfassung von freilebenden Huftieren . Retrieved from
https://www.dbu.de/OPAC/ab/DBU-Abschlussbericht-AZ-30413.pdf

Haupt, L., Gruttke , H., Binot-Hafke, M., Otto, C., & Pauly, A. (2009). Rote Liste gefährdeter Tiere,
Pflanzen und Pilze Deutschlands. (B. f. Naturschutz, Ed.) Retrieved May 2018, from
https://www.bfn.de/themen/rote-liste/veroeffentlichungen.html

Hill, D., Fasham, M., Tucker, G., Shewry, M., & Shaw, P. (2005a). Handbook of Biodiversity Methods -
Survey, Evaluation and Monitoring. Cambridge, p.31. Retrieved June 2018

Hill, D., Fasham, M., Tucker, G., Shewry, M., & Shaw, P. (2005b). Handbook of Biodiversity Methods -
Survey, Evaluation and Monitoring. Cambridge, p. 31-33. Retrieved June 2018

Hofmeester , T. R., Rowcliff, M. J., & Jansen, P. A. (2016). A simple method for estimating the
effective detection distance of camera traps. Zoological Societty of London, 3. Retrieved July
2018, from https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/rse2.25

22
IUCN. (2017). IUCN Red List of threatened Species. Retrieved June 2018, from
http://www.iucnredlist.org/

Jackson, J. (1980). The annual diet of the Roe deer (Capreolus cupreolus). Journal of Zoology, 192,
71-83. Retrieved June 2018, from https://eurekamag.com/pdf/001/001000349.pdf

Jiang, G., Zhang, M., & Ma, J. (2007). Effects of human disturbance on movement, foraging and bed
selection in red deerCervus elaphus xanthopygus from the Wandashan Mountains,
northeastern China. Acta Theriologica, 52, pp. 435-446. Retrieved June 2018, from
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03194241

Kemkes, W., Maly-Wischhof, L., Tscherniak, A., Wesemüller, H., & Diepolder, U. (2008).
Qualitätskriterien und -standards füe Deutsche Nationalparke - Entwicklung eines
Evaluierungsverfahrens zur Überprüfung der Managementeffektivität. Europarc Deutschland
e.V. Retrieved April 2018, from http://www.europarc-deutschland.de/wp-
content/uploads/2012/08/2008_Qualitaetskriterien_und_-
standards_fuer_deutsche_Nationalparks.pdf

Keuling, O. (2018). unpublished data. Retrieved June 2018

Kolowski, J., & Forrester, T. (2017, October). Camera trap placement and the potential for bias due to
trails and other features. Retrieved March 2018, from
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0186679#sec013

Komyakova, V. (2009). Habitat characteristics as determinants of the local doversity and structure of
coral reef fish communities . James Cook University. Retrieved March 2018, from
https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/7998/2/02whole.pdf

Krojerova-Prokesova, J., Barancekova, M., Sustr, P., & Heurich, M. (2010). Feeding patterns of red
deer Cervus elaphus along an altitudinal. Wildlife Biology, 16, 173-184. Retrieved June 2018,
from http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.2981/09-004

Kumar, R. (2011a). Research Methodology - a step-by-step guide for beginners. 30. Retrieved March
2018, from http://www.sociology.kpi.ua/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Ranjit_Kumar-
Research_Methodology_A_Step-by-Step_G.pdf

Kumar, R. (2011b). Research Methodology - a step-by-step guide for beginners. 112. Retrieved
March 2018, from http://www.sociology.kpi.ua/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/Ranjit_Kumar-Research_Methodology_A_Step-by-Step_G.pdf

Kumar, R. (2011c). Research Methodology - a step-by-step guide for beginners. 110.

doi:http://www.sociology.kpi.ua/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Ranjit_Kumar-
Research_Methodology_A_Step-by-Step_G.pdf

Kumar, R. (2011d). Research Methodology - a step-by-step guide for beginners. 106. Retrieved
March 2018, from http://www.sociology.kpi.ua/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/Ranjit_Kumar-Research_Methodology_A_Step-by-Step_G.pdf

Larrucea, E., Brussard, P., Jaeger, M., & Barrett, R. (2007). Cameras, Coyotes, and the Assumption of
Equal Detectability. Retrieved March 2018, from
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1697&context=icwdm_usdanw
rc

23
Manel, S., Williams, H., & Ormerod, S. (2001). Evaluating presence–absence models in ecology: the
need to account for prevalence. Journal of Applied Ecology(38), pp. 921-931. Retrieved
March 2018, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-
2664.2001.00647.x/full

Meisingset, E. L., Leo, L. E., Brekkum, Ø., van Moorter, B., & Mysterud, A. (2013). Red Deer Habitat
Selection and Movements in Relation to Roads. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 77,
181-191. Retrieved June 2018, from
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jwmg.469

Melis, C., Szafranska, P. A., Jedrzejwska, B., & Barton, K. (2006). Biogeographical variation in the
population density of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in western Eurasia. Journal of Biogeography, 33,
pp. 803-811. Retrieved June 2018, from
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01434.x

Ministerium der Justiz. (2014). Landesrecht online. Retrieved 2018, from

http://landesrecht.rlp.de/jportal/portal/t/cca/page/bsrlpprod.psml?pid=Dokumentanzeige&
showdoccase=1&js_peid=Trefferliste&documentnumber=1&numberofresults=43&fromdoct
odoc=yes&doc.id=jlr-Hu_HochwNatPStVtrRPrahmen&doc.part=X&doc.price=0.0&doc.hl=1

NABU. (2018). Von der Küste bis zu den Alpen. Retrieved April 2018, from Übersicht Nationalparke in
Deutschland: https://www.nabu.de/natur-und-
landschaft/schutzgebiete/deutschland/np/05793.html

Nationalpark Hunsrück-Hochwald. (2015-2017). Streckenstatistik.

Nationalpark Hunsrück-Hochwald. (2018a). With history, naturally! Retrieved February 2018, from
http://www.nationalpark-hunsrueck-hochwald.de/en/hunsrueck-hochwald-national-
park.html

Nationalpark Hunsrück-Hochwald. (2018b). Gebiet & Zonen des Nationalparks. Retrieved February
2018, from http://www.nationalpark-hunsrueck-hochwald.de/nationalpark-hunsrueck-
hochwald/schutzgebiete-in-deutschland/gebiet-zonen-des-nationalparks.html

Naturgucker. (2018). naturgucker.de. Retrieved April 2018, from https://naturgucker.de/natur.dll/$/

O´Brien, T. G., Kinnaird, M. F., & Wibisono, H. T. (2003). Crouching tigers, hidden prey: Sumatran
tiger and prey populations in a tropical forest landscape. Animal Conservation, 6, pp. 131-
139. Retrieved March 2018, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227543071_Crouching_tigers_hidden_prey_Sum
atran_tiger_and_prey_populations_in_a_tropical_forest_landscape

Palei, H., Pradhan, T., Sahu, H., & Nayak, A. (2015). Estimating Mammalian Abundance Using Camera
Traps in the Tropical Forest of Similipal Tiger Reserve, Odisha, India. Retrieved February
2018, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273716504_Estimating_Mammalian_Abundance
_Using_Camera_Traps_in_the_Tropical_Forest_of_Similipal_Tiger_Reserve_Odisha_India/ov
erview

Portland State University. (2018). Ecoplexity - Teaching ecological complexity. Retrieved from
Measuring canopy cover:
http://ecoplexity.org/files/Measuring_Canopy_Cover_lesson_plan.pdf

24
Prüssing, A., Ebert, C., Schneider, A., & Segatz, E. (2018). Genetisches Wildkatzenmonitoring: Gibt es
Unterschiede bei der Erfassung der Geschlechter über die Lockstockmethode? In V. d.
Deutschlands (Ed.), Wildbiologische Forschungsberichte, (pp. 51-57). Retrieved June 2018

Quansah, Y. (2011). A Survey of Medium-Sized Mammal in Asubima Forest Reserve. Retrieved March
2018, from
http://www.formghana.com/login/upload/A_survey_of_Medium_Sized_Mammals_in_Asubi
ma_Forest_Reserve_2011.pdf

Rahman, D., Gonzalez, G., & Aulagnier, S. (2017). Population size, distribution and status of the
remote and Critically Endangered Bawean deer Axis kuhlii. Oryx, 51, 665-672. Retrieved June
2018, from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/oryx/article/population-size-
distribution-and-status-of-the-remote-and-critically-endangered-bawean-deer-axis-
kuhlii/73BBC067A2DBE3198431F664BDCF991B

Romportl, D., Blahova, A., Andreas, M., Chumanova, E., Andera, M., & Cerveny, J. (2017). Current
distribution and habitat preferences of red deer and Eurasian elk in the Czech Republic.
European Journal of Environmental Sciences, 7, 50-62. Retrieved June 2018, from
http://www.ejes.cz/index.php/ejes/article/view/298

Rovero, F., & Marshall, A. R. (2009). Camera trapping photographic rate as an index of density in
forest ungulates. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, pp. 1011-1017. Retrieved March 2018, from
https://scubla.it/images/Schede_pdf/ecologia/approfondimenti_fototrappole/07camera_tr
apping_photographic_rate_as_index_density_forest_ungulates.pdf

Sarmento, P., Cruz, J., Tarroso, P., & Fonseca, C. (2006). Space and Habitat Selection by Female
European Wild Cats (Felis silvestris silvestris). Wildlife Biology in Practice, 2, 79-89. Retrieved
June 2018, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26493026_Space_and_Habitat_Selection_by_Fe
male_European_Wild_Cats_Felis_silvestris_silvestris

Schley, L., & Roper, T. (2003). Diet of wild boar Sus scrofa in Western Europe, with particular
reference to consumption of agricultural crops. Mammal Review, 33, 43-56. Retrieved June
2018, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230235684_Diet_of_wild_boar_Sus_scrofa_in_
Western_Europe_with_particular_reference_to_consumption_of_agricultural_crops

Schneider, A., Hohmann, U., & Sega, E. (2017). Fotofallenmonitoring - Bundesweiter Standard zum
Wildtiermonitoring in Waldnationalparken. Retrieved February 2018

Torres, R. T., Virgos, E., Panzacchi, M., Linnell, J. D., & Fonseca, C. (2012). Life at the edge: Roe deer
occurrance at the opposite end of their geographical distribution, Norway and Portugal.
Elsevier, 77, 140-146. Retrieved June 2018, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232723241_Life_at_the_edge_Roe_deer_occurr
ence_at_the_opposite_ends_of_their_geographical_distribution_Norway_and_Portugal

Vetter, S. G., & Walter, A. (2017). Rotwild: mehr Wildkälber bei hohen Wilddichten. Retrieved June
2018, from Bundesforsten:
http://www.bundesforste.at/fileadmin/jagd/Voelk/2017_05_Rotwild-GV_FIWI.pdf

Vickers, A. D., & Palmer, S. C. (2000). The Influence of canopy cover and other factors upon the
regeneration of Scots pine and its associated ground flora within Glen Tanar National Nature

25
 Reserve. The Journal of the Institute of Chartered Foresters, 73. Retrieved from
https://watermark.silverchair.com/730037.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7
Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAaswggGnBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggGYMIIBlAIBADCCAY0GCSqGSIb
3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQM_OT50dFwQS5t4psGAgEQgIIBXrbSvJWWbjHHo_qmF
0JZOv803p_s4P19R_zoqh6sI_olc0ss

Weiß, A. (Director). (2013). Nationalpark Hunsrück - Warum der Wald schützenswert ist [Motion
Picture]. Retrieved June 2018, from Nationalpark Hunsrück - Warum der Wald
schützenswert ist: https://www.swr.de/natuerlich/-
/id=100810/did=11676476/pv=video/nid=100810/2yiaqm/

Weston, M. A., & Stankowich, T. (2014). Dogs as agents of disturbance. In Free-ranging dogs and
Wildlife Conservation (pp. 94-116). Oxford University Press. Retrieved July 2018, from
http://web.csulb.edu/~tstankow/Weston&Stankowich2014.pdf

Wildkameras.org. (2015). C123 Triple Flash. Retrieved March 2018, from

http://www.wildkameras.org/Cuddeback-Trible-Flash

26
 Appendix
I. Expected Species List Mammals
II. Presence/Absence for Birds
III. Field Form Habitat and Vegetation
IV. Field Form Set up and Location
V. Original Set up of Test run
VI. Sensitivity Analyses
VII. Code Book
 I.) Expected Species List Mammals

1
Previously recorded referring to locations of sightings published on online platforms

Species Scientific Previously recorded where? How often Status in RP/G

Mammals
Red Deer Cervus elaphus 6208/4 2 *
Roe Deer Capreolus capreolus 6308/4;6308/3,6209/3 15 *
Wild Boar Sus scrofa 6308/4 2 *
Red Fox Vulpes vulpes 6308/2;6308/1,6308/4 10 *
European Wild Cat Felis silvestris 6208/4,6307/4,6308/1,6209/2 7 3
European Hare Lepus europaeus 6308/4;6308/2 9 3
Hazel Dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius 6308/4;6209/3;6209/2 16 G
Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 6308/4 1 /
Eurasian Red Squirrel Sciurus vulgaris 6308/4;6308/2 5 *
Stone Marten Martes foina 6308/2 1 V
Bank Vole Myodes glareolus 6209/3 1 /
Pine Marten Martes martes source: www.jagdverband.de 3
Badger Meles meles 6209/1;6308/4 2 *
Polecat Mustela potorius 6308/2;6209/1 3 V
European Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus source: Peter Boye, Verbreitung Igel *
European Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus source: Corbet, Gordon & Ovenden, Verbreitung Wildkaninchen V
1
(Naturgucker, 2018)
 II.) Presence/Absence for Birds

Status RP/G referring to the status in the area with common at >6.000 breeding pairs, medium common at 601-6.000 pairs,
rare at 61-600 pairs, extremely rate at 1-60 pairs, /-not assessed or listed. IUCN referring to the international status with
LC-least concern, NT-near threatened, recorded meaning if they were identified on pictures during the monitoring

Birds Scientific Status in RP/G1 IUCN2 Recorded?

Black Stork Ciconia nigra Extremly Rare LC No
Black Woodpecker Dryocopus martius MediumCommon LC No
Grey Heron Ardea cinerea Rare LC Yes
Kestrel Falco tinnunculus MediumCommon LC No
Osprey Pandion haliaetus / LC No
Eurasian Buzzard Buteo buteo MediumCommon LC No
Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos major Common LC No
Eurasian Jay Garrulus glandarius Common LC Yes
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Common LC No
Common house martin Delichon urbicum Common LC No
Common Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita Common LC No
Wren Troglodytes troglodytes Common LC No
Eurasian Black Bird Turdus merula Common LC Yes
Common Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs Common LC No
Black Kite Milvus migrans Rare LC No
Red Kite Milvus milvus Rare NT Yes
Green Woodpecker Picus viridis MediumCommon LC No
Eurasian Blue Tit Cyanistes caeruleus Common LC Yes
Great Tit Parus major Common LC Yes
Marsh Tit Poecile palustris Common LC No
Eurasian Nuthatch Sitta europaea Common LC No
European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Common LC No
Black Redstart Phoenicurus ochruros Common LC No
Common Redstart Phoenicurus phoenicurus MediumCommon LC No
Grey Wagtail Motacilla cinerea MediumCommon LC No
Brambling Fringilla montifringilla / LC No
European Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis Common LC No
Common Linnet Linaria cannabina Common LC No
Eurasian Sparrow
Hawk Accipiter nisus MediumCommon LC No
Wood Pidgeon Columba palumbus Common LC Yes
Eurasian Swift Apus apus Common LC No
Eurasian Magpie Pica Pica Common LC Yes
Common Raven Corvus corax Rare LC No
Carrion Crow Corvus corone Common LC No
Rook Corvus frugilegus MediumCommon LC No
Goldcrest Regulus regulus Common LC No
European Robin Erithacus rubecula Common LC Yes
House Sparrow Passer domesticus Common LC No
Eurasian Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula Common LC No
Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella Common LC No
Eurasian Woodcock Scolopax rusticola MediumCommon LC Yes
Coal Tit Parus ater Common LC Yes
Long-tailed Tit Aegithalos caudatus MediumCommon LC No
Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla Common LC No
Song Thrush Turdus philomelos Common LC No
European Greenfinch Carduelis chloris Common LC No
Coccothraustes
Hawfinch coccothraustes Common LC No
Little Owl Athene noctua Extremly Rare LC No
Eurasian Siskin Carduelis spinus Rare LC No
Firecrest Regulus ignicapillus Common LC No
Great Grey Shrike Lanius excubitor Extremly Rare LC No
Whinchat Saxicola rubetra Rare LC No
Nothern Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe Rare LC No
Eurasian Treecreeper Certhia familiars Common LC No
Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca MediumCommon LC No
White Stork Ciconia ciconia Rare LC No
Eurasian Cuckoo Cuculus canorus MediumCommon LC No
Willow Tit Parus montanus MediumCommon LC No
Fieldfare Turdus pilaris Common LC No
Chrested Tit Parus cristatus Common LC No
Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra MediumCommon LC No
1
(Deutsche Wildtier Stiftung, 2018)
2
(IUCN, 2017)1
III.) Field Form Habitat and Vegetation
 IV.) Field form set up and location

Field form
Camera Location Features

Date:
Nr. Fotofallenstandort…………………..
Koordinaten des Standorts (möglichst UTM32! Wenn nicht, welches Bezugssystem?..........................)

Standort: Vorhanden Anmerkungen

Ja/Nein

Blicktiefe von min. 10m

(auch in Vegetationsphase)
……………..m
Wasserfläche

Entfernung ……………..m
Weg (Fußgänger)

Entfernung ……………..m
Straße (Autos)

Entfernung ……………..m
Felswand / Formationen

Entfernung ……………..m
Zaun / Absperrungen

Entfernung ……………..m

Wildwechsel

Entfernung ……………..m
Nicht sichtbar für Besucher

Ab Entfernung von ……………..m

Alles in Bezug auf einen 40m Umkreis um die Kamera Falle

Zusätzlich auffällige Features:

 V.) Original setup of test-run

Cameras used for the monitoring were the Cuddleback C123 Triple Flash,
which offers exchangeable flash-units and is thus of use for several goals
(Figure 6) (Wildkameras.org, 2015). The monitoring is meant to be carried out
during the vegetation period, the cameras were therefore in the field from
April to November. To avoid any preference for certain species, the
distribution of the camera traps did not follow stratification but was done by
systematic sampling. The three zones the national park is subdivided into
were not considered individually, but the area was seen as a whole. Using
GIS, a raster was created with GPS points that covers 10.000 ha, which was
projected on the area to define the camera plots, resulting in approximately
one camera trap per 200 ha (Schneider, et al., 2017). In Hunsrück-Hochwald,
this was extended to 57 cameras, based on availability. With the help of GPS
units, the points created in the raster were located in the field (Schneider, et Figure 6 - Cuddeback C123
al., 2017). Once found, the nearest location to the GPS coordinate that would Trippleflash, Wildkameras.org,
2015
meet the following criteria from the standard was used to set up the camera
trap.
- clear sight is possible for at least 10 m, not hindered by vegetation,
also during the vegetation period (growing season)
- the sight can be upheld by minor maintenance of the vegetation, such as cutting of branches
- No water, path, precipitous cliffs or road is in the view of the camera trap, nor was the surrounding
area fenced or the camera trap too obvious for visitors of the park.
Furthermore, did the standard hold technical specifications about the set-up of the cameras. This
included that each camera was mounted aiming towards north to avoid the evening sun causing a
glaring effect. All cameras were to be mounted in knee height and with a view parallel to the ground.
If the camera was set at a slope, it should be placed parallel to the slope.
Due to a mistake, all camera traps were turned by 90° when mounted. Because of this, the overall
picture rate is assumed to be lower than it would have been in a normal setup. The manufacturer of
the cameras as well as other experts were consulted about a possible delirious effect. All stated that
besides the reduced picture rate, there should be no further effects on the results from the test-run.
Therefore, the 90° angle will not be taken into account for the analysis.
Camera settings were set to a white flash, picture delay of 5 seconds, and a series of 2 pictures.
The picture resolution was set to 5 MB. Video function was not enabled. (Schneider, et al., 2017).
The cameras were active 24 hours a day. This way, animals of all species which inhabit the area and
are large enough to trigger the sensor of the camera, had a chance to get their picture taken. The
focus was on medium and large sized mammals, and mainly the hoofed game species: red deer
(Cervus elaphus), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) and wild boars (Sus scrofa).

Questions that were previously set for what data should be achieved by using this procedure were:
- For which species was it not possible to prove their otherwise known presence, during the
monitoring period? (Focused on mammals ranging upwards from the size of a squirrel)
-What were the relative abundances for species found with at least medium picture rate (mobile and
common species, for example carnivorous mammals, hoofed game, lagomorpha and where
applicable grouse)?
-What were the absolute abundances for individually recognizable species with at least medium
picture rate (e.g. European wild cats) or species without individual recognition but a high picture rate
(e.g. wild boars)?
 VI.) Sensitivity Analyses

25

20

15
Density

10

0
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2
Group size

Roe Deer Wild Boar Red Deer Red Fox Wild Cat

Figure 5- Sensitivity Analysis for effect of changes to group size on the estimated densities,
circles indicate the value used for each species in REM

30.000

25.000

20.000
Density

15.000

10.000

5.000

0.000
0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.01 0.011 0.012
Detection distance in km

Roe Deer Wild Boar Red Deer Red Fox Wild Cat

Figure 6- Sensitivity Analysis for effect of changes to detection distance on the estimated densities,
circles indicate the value used for each species in REM
 14

12

10
Density

0
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Detection angle

Roe Deer Wild Boar Red Deer Red Fox Wild Cat

Figure 7- Sensitivity Analysis for effect of changes to detection angle on the estimated densities,
circle indicate the value used for all species in REM

30

25

20
Density

15

10

0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
Daily distances moved in km

Roe Deer Wild Boar Red Deer Red Fox Wild Cat

Figure 8- Sensitivity Analysis for effect of changes to daily distance moved on the estimated densities,
circles indicate the value used for each species in REM

100.0 100.0
Percentage of Density

80.0 66.7
60.0 50.0
40.0
33.3 28.6
40.0 25.0 22.2 20.0
18.2 16.7 15.4 14.3 13.3
20.0
0.0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
Daily distance moved in km

Figure 9 - Sensitivity Analysis for changes in daily distances moved and the corresponding changes in the percentages of the
estimated densities for all species
 VII.) Code Book

Variable Description Measurement Level

Habitat Habitat Types Nominal
TDln Natural Logarithm of Trap days Scale
Enc_roed Encounter Roe deer Scale
Enc_wb Encounter WIld Boar Scale
Enc_redd Encounter Red Deer Scale
Enc_rf Encounter Red Fox Scale
Enc_wc Encounter Wild Cat Scale
PC 1 Tall Vegetation Layer Scale
PC 2 Ground to Medium Vegetation Layer Scale
PC 3 Ground Vegetation Layer Scale
ZSqrtDistWatr Distance to Water Scale
ZSqrtDistPTorRD Distance to Path or Road Scale
ZSqrtDistBuild Distance to Buildings Scale

Variable Values
Value Label
Habitat 1 Beech Forest
2 Moor/Birch Forest
5 Coniferous Forest

View publication stats