See what you've been missing: An assessment of Reconyx® PC900 Hyperfire cameras

Abstract

ABSTRACT For camera‐trap studies to produce accurate data, cameras should have reliable detection of animals within their field of view. We reviewed 1,503,330 pictures obtained from August–September 2016 and February–March 2017 in North Carolina, USA, using 36 Reconyx® PC900 HyperFire cameras (Reconyx, Holmen, WI, USA). We evaluated factors related to temperature, wind speed, and whether specific detection band(s) and zone(s) may have increased the probability of triggering cameras. We focused on 10 species to determine species‐specific reasons for not triggering the camera. The odds of triggering the camera increased when an animal was detected in more zones. Additionally, there were more triggers than expected if an animal was observed in both detections bands as opposed to none. Triggered events were species‐dependent, seeming to favor larger species. The Passive Infrared Motion Detector (PIR) missed 14–16% of the independent events of bears (Ursus americanus), coyotes (Canis latrans), bobcats (Lynx rufus), and red wolves (C. rufus), and were overall ineffective at triggering for squirrels (92%; Sciurus spp.) and rabbits (80%; Sylvilagus spp.). Many (47–64%) of the independent events of gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), raccoons (Procyon lotor), white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and opossums (Didelphis virginiana) would have been missed if only the PIR function was used. The lack of detection of these species may underestimate occupancy and abundance estimates of these populations. Our results suggest that Reconyx HyperFire PC900 cameras have limitations as a broad, catch‐all system for monitoring wildlife as a result of the layout of their infrared detection zones. © 2019 The Wildlife Society.

Keywords

• camera traps
• detection
• game cameras
• Reconyx
• wildlife surveys