Human interference with wildlife surveys: a case study from camera-trapping road underpasses in Costa Rica


E LEAN OR F LA TT 1 , 2 ,HILAR Y BRUMBERG1 , 3 MARCO HIDALGO 1 and ANDREW WHITWORTH* 1 , 4 , 5


Abstract Camera traps are widely used to study wildlife. However, theft and vandalism are frequent, resulting in millions of dollars in financial losses and large data gaps in research. Here we report on the impacts of camera-trap theft on a study examining wildlife movement under high- way bridges in south-west Costa Rica. Even with metal cases, locks and signs installed on all camera traps, 65% were stolen. The working camera traps accumulated a total of 167 trap-nights and detected only two wild mammal species, eight bird species and one reptile species, as well as three domestic animal species and people. This limited number of wild species was unexpected given the known presence of wide-ranging megafauna and a diverse terrestrial mam- mal community in the region. The pervasive theft of camera traps leads to data gaps and impairs the potential for re- search in the region, and we discuss the potential additional reasons for detecting only a small number of species. Our findings highlight the need for solutions to camera-trap theft, to limit financial and data losses for conservation.


Resumen Las cámaras trampa son usadas mundialmente para el estudio de vida silvestre. Sin embargo, los robos y vandalismo de estos dispositivos son frecuentes, lo que representa una pérdida financiera de millones de dólares, y una significativa disminución de datos para la investi- gación científica. En este artículo, reportamos los impactos de robos de cámaras trampa en un estudio enfocado en movimiento de vida silvestre en pasos de fauna subterráneos localizados en carreteras del suroeste de Costa Rica. Aún con protección de cajas metálicas, cerraduras y señalización in- stalada en todas las cámaras trampa, el 65% de las cámaras fueron robadas. Las cámaras trampa que funcionaron acumularon un esfuerzo total de muestreo de 167 noches, detectando solamente dos mamíferos silvestres, ocho aves,


*Corresponding author, andywhitworth@osaconservation.org 1Osa Conservation, Puntarenas, Puerto Jimenez, Costa Rica 2Deanery of Biomedical Sciences, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine,


University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK 3Department of Environmental Studies, University of Colorado Boulder,


Boulder, Colorado, USA 4Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, College of


Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK 5Department of Biology, Center for Energy, Environment, and Sustainability, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA


Received 23 May 2023. Revision requested 20 July 2023. Accepted 16 January 2024. First published online 18 February 2025.


un único reptil, así como tres especies de animales domésticos y personas. Este número limitado de especies silvestres fue inesperado dada la presencia conocida de una megafauna con grandes distribuciones y una comuni- dad diversa de mamíferos terrestres en la región. El robo generalizado de cámaras trampa genera lagunas en los datos y perjudica el potencial de investigación en la región, y discutimos las posibles razones adicionales de la detección limitada de especies. Los resultados de este estudio resaltan la necesidad de una solución para el foto- trampeo en áreas donde la incidencia de robo es alta, con el fin de detener las pérdidas económicas y de datos para la conservación.


Keywords Camera theft, camera trapping, Costa Rica, data gaps, human disturbance, roads, wildlife surveys, wildlife underpasses


dalismof cameras are frequent, significantly affecting studies both within (Hossain et al., 2016) and outside (Widodo et al., 2022) protected areas. An international study revealed that theft and vandalism not only incur costs because of equip- ment loss (c. USD 1.48 million from309 practitioners during 2010–2015) and theft prevention (c. USD 800,000 during 2010–2015) but also affect survey design (Meek et al., 2018). However, wildlife surveys are more important than ever, particularly in human-dominated landscapes, if we are to establish human–wildlife coexistence despite increasing glo- bal urbanization rates (mean expansion rate of 9,687 km2 per year for the past 30 years; Liu et al., 2020). In particular, we need to understand how wildlife re-


C


sponds to movement barriers such as roads. Road under- passes and overpasses have been shown to mitigate the negative effects of roads on wildlife (Donaldson, 2007; Teixeira et al., 2013; Flatt et al., 2022). However, these struc- tures are expensive and complex to build (Ascensão&Mira, 2007). Bridges have the potential to act as multiple-use structures. They are usually constructed by transportation companies and government agencies to facilitate human mobility over waterbodies. These bridges could also serve as underpasses for wildlife, providing dispersal routes. However, the most widely studied road underpasses are drainage coverts (Taylor & Goldingay, 2010; Sparks &


This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited. Oryx, 2024, 58(6), 802–805 © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605324000097


amera traps are widely used to survey wildlife (Meek et al., 2015; Suzuki et al., 2017). However, theft and van-


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140