Data Analysis of Camera Trapping White Tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus)

BY: Mikaela McGowan

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

SPRING 2021

STOCKTON UNIVERSITY

Instructor: Dr. Catherine Tredick

 1

Introduction

Camera trapping is an extremely useful method in wildlife management when surveying

species populations and conducting wildlife research, and has allowed for a substantial increase

in information on how wildlife species act in their natural habitats (Burton et.al., 2015). Before

the introduction of camera traps, researchers had to use more hands-on methods and techniques

to conduct their research like radio telemetry, aerial surveys, and live-trapping, which can be

extremely time-consuming and tedious (Meek et. al., 2014). A huge advantage to camera

trapping is that it is a non-invasive technique, and allows for the studying of elusive animals like

deer or nocturnal species without the presence of humans (Rovero et. al., 2010). There are many

factors that must be looked over prior to setting up camera traps, like where the best place is to

place the camera to maximize the research results, how often the cameras must be checked, what

the target species are, and how accessible the site is (Rovero et. al., 2010). It is incredibly

important to work through these objectives prior to setting up traps to avoid any confounding

variables, and so that the project holds external validity. Camera traps have opened up a new

door for wildlife managers and the like, and have become increasingly popular within recent

decades, advancing with technology (Burton et.al., 2015).

Detection of wildlife on camera traps can depend on many factors, as wildlife may be in

the area, but not triggering the camera sensor (Rovero et. al., 2010). Determining the relationship

between human activity and the abundance of certain wildlife species can be difficult because of

this aspect. Wildlife may also be moving differently when in urban areas because of less

landscape, affecting their detection rates (Parsons et. al., 2017). This does not mean, however,

that they are not inhabiting the ecosystem.

The objectives of this study were to determine whether white tailed deer (Odocoileus
 2

virginianus) are caught on camera more often in areas that are less disturbed by human activity

through analyzing data from multiple camera traps on Stockton University’s main campus. Other

studies have suggested that wildlife are not highly affected by hiking trails or recreational

activities, and that even the most heavily used trails are still largely used by wildlife (Kays et. al.,

2016). Urbanized landscapes may actually attract more white-tailed deer to the area because of

what resources it provides them, including shelter, food, and protection (Protratz et.al., 2019).

Fragmented land, gardens, and the lack of large predators makes a place like Stockton University

a safe haven and perfect habitat for deer. Natural forested habitats that are undisturbed tend to

have lower densities of deer, according to Illinois state deer biologist Dr. Joe Caudell, who

explains that Odocoileus virginianus thrive on edge-habitats that often accompany suburban

areas (Honeycutt 2019).

Methodology

The cameras I received my data from are located around the forests of Stockton

University’s main campus in Galloway township, New Jersey. I accessed the data through the

faculty course files, and navigated to the folders containing photographs from the Farm, Burn,

and Clearcut cameras (Fig.1). I chose these three camera traps to retrieve data from based upon

their locations from general human activity, such as hiking paths or extracurricular club

activities. The clearcut camera is located in an area that does not see a lot of human activity,

besides the occasional “class trip” from environmental professors and their students. The burn

camera is located in an area that often does see human activity, as it is located near various

hiking trails, close to the upperclassman housing units. The farm camera is somewhat off the

beaten path and does not see much human activity, however, Stockton University’s track team

often uses this area for practice.

 3

The camera traps are set up about one meter from the ground, bolted to the tree, and

securely locked, as to not be messed with or disturbed. I gathered about a year's worth of data

from each trap; from 1 February 2019 to 2 February 2020 for the farm camera, from 2 February

2019 to 5 February 2020 for the burn camera, and from 7 February 2019 to 1 May 2020 for the

clearcut camera traps. Data entries for the clearcut camera were missing for July through

December of 2019, so I collected data from January through May of 2020 to make up for the

missing statistics. The information embedded within the data I collected included the date and

time a photograph was taken, how many photos were taken in that succession, which species was

pictured, and the number of species pictured. The most beneficial information which was used

for this research was the month the picture was taken, whether a human or white-tailed deer was

photographed, and how many of that species were caught. I collected a full year of data in order

to compare the effects of seasonal changes, as well as the change in human activity (school in

session compared to not in session). To analyze my results clearly, I imported the proper data

from the farm, burn, and clearcut camera trap folders into Microsoft Excel. From there, I created

pivot tables for each of the camera trap datasets, exhibiting the total number of species (Human

or Deer) captured each month.

 4

Figure 1. Map of Camera Traps located on Stockton University’s Campus

Note: Figure retrieved from Stockton University’s Faculty Course Files

Results

Farm Camera

Table 1. Farm Camera trap results showing the number of deer occurrences

VS. the number of human occurrences by month during a one-year period.

Month Number of Deer Number of

Occurrences Human
Occurrences

Deer Human
 5

2019

Feb 25 1

Mar 15 0

Apr 26 0

May 52 2

Jun 22 0

Jul 5 0

Aug 13 0

Sep 10 0

Oct 32 0

Nov 22 0

Dec 22 0

2020

Jan 22 0

Feb 13 0

Grand Total 279 3

Note: Data retrieved from Stockton University’s Faculty Course Files

From February 2019 to 2020, a total of 279 white-tailed deer were photographed from the

farm camera, while only a total 3 humans were photographed. The farm camera is not very close

to human activity and development, which can explain the severe lack of human occurrences.

The most occurrences of deer and humans occurred in May 2019, where 52 different deer were

caught on camera and 2 people. However, there is likely no correlation between these

occurrences. The number of humans captured on camera dropped completely to 0 during the

summer months, likely because of school no longer being in session.

 6

Burn Camera

Table 2. Burn Camera data results portraying the number of deer occurrences

VS. the number of human occurrences by month for a one-year period

Month Number of Deer Number of

Occurrences Human
Occurrences

Deer Human

2019

Jan 2 0

Feb 2 13

Mar 1 7

Apr 0 14

May 9 1

Jun 39 0

Jul 21 1

Aug 29 0

Sep 44 2

Oct 100 4

Nov 60 11

Dec 16 4

2020

Jan 25 16

Feb 3 2

Grand Total 351 75

Note: Data retrieved from Stockton University’s Faculty Course Files
 7

From January 2019 to February 2020, a grand total of 351 white-tailed deer were caught

on the burn camera trap, and a total of 75 humans were photographed. The vast amount of

human occurrences are most likely due to the location of the camera trap, which is more closely

located to human activity such as hiking paths and campus dorms. Although there is a big human

presence, there were still a huge amount of deer occurrences captured, especially in the months

of October and November, where 100 and 60 deer were photographed, respectively. From May

to August of 2019, there was a large drop in the amount of human occurrences photographed,

once again likely due to school no longer being in session. Of the three camera traps analized,

the burn camera captured the highest number of both human and deer occurrences, suggesting

that human activity does not negatively affect the density of white-tailed deer.

Clearcut Camera

Table 3. Clearcut Camera data results exhibiting the number of deer occurrences

VS. the number of human occurrences by month during a one-year period.

Month Number of Deer Number of Human

Occurrences Occurrences

Deer Human

2019

Feb 4 2

Mar 10 7

Apr 3 36

May 8 1

Jun 2 0

2020

Jan 0 1
 8

Feb 12 5

March 6 0

April 12 0

May 1 0

Grand Total 58 52
Note: Data retrieved from Stockton University’s Faculty Course Files

From February to June of 2019 and January to May of 2020, a total of 58 white-tailed

deer were photographed on the clearcut camera, and a total of 52 humans. Data from July

through December was unavailable, as the camera trap battery died and was not replaced until

January of 2020. Because of this, data was collected until May of 2020, to exhibit a more

extensive time frame and to be able to better compare the data with that of the burn and farm

cameras. The ratio of human to deer photographed from this camera trap is rather surprising, as it

is almost 1:1 deer to human. Of the three camera traps examined, the clearcut camera

photographed the least amount of both human and deer species. The human occurrences for

April of 2019 shows a large spike in activity, with 36 humans captured. The large increase in

activity here is somewhat an outlier, because there was likely an environmental class trip to this

area, not separate human occurances on different days.

Discussion

There is certainly no shortage of white tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) on Stockton

University’s main campus in Galloway Township. The urbanization of the area incorporated so

closely to forested ecosystems makes for a perfect habitat for deer to reside because of the

fragmented land and abundance of food resources (Honeycutt 2015). There does not seem to be a

negative correlation between the number of deer occurrences when compared to the number of
 9

human occurrences at either the clearcut, burn, or farm cameras. The burn and clearcut cameras

photographed the highest abundance of humans as predicted, due to the close proximity they are

to hiking trails and other human activity, like class trips and housing units. The farm camera did

not photograph many humans, as it is far away from the usual campus festivities and not often

wandered upon. It is important to evaluate multiple locations with varying degrees of human

activity to fully understand the impact that humans have on wildlife and the environment, and to

develop a well rounded study that assesses if this human influence negatively affects the

abundance of deer (Burton et. al., 2015). Having various locations of differing habitats is

incredibly significant to avoid/minimize detection bias, and to completely examine the

possibility of any correlation between human and deer occurrences (Burton et. al., 2015).

My results show no significant correlation between the abundance of deer relative to the

amount of human activity in the area, nor is there a significant correlation between seasonal

changes and the abundance of deer. There is, however, a small correlation between the season

and abundance of human occurrences. Stockton University’s fall and spring semesters are in

session from September through May, and most college students return home for the summer

from June-August. The lack of students in these summer months can be seen in table 1, table 2,

and table 3, as there is a decrease in the number of human occurrences during this time frame.

White tailed deer thrive in disturbed ecosystems as they love fragmented habitats, which urban

areas often give them (Honeycutt 2015). Each camera trap is near a somewhat disturbed area, so

it makes sense that deer are captured in high abundance at each of them, regardless of how many

humans were also captured. Other studies conducted have found that wildlife species normally

do not avoid human-made trails, insinuating that they are not negatively affected by human

activity (Kays et. al., 2016).

 10

Further research to be conducted based upon the results of my study may include a

deeper analysis of human activity that affects deer abundance. It is clear that the abundance of

white tailed deer on Stockton’s campus in Galloway are not affected by hiking trails, housing

units, or controlled burns, but many other conflicting factors may arise which could affect the

deer abundance (Honeycutt 2015). It may also be beneficial to evaluate camera trap data at more

various locations and to collect a larger sample of data in order to more accurately assess the

relationship between deer abundance and human activity (Parsons et. al., 2017). Human and

wildlife interactions are almost impossible to avoid in today’s current climate, and having an

understanding of the dynamics between the two is extremely important if humans want to

continue having a relationship with them.

 11

References

Burton, A. C., Neilson, E., Moreira, D., Ladle, A., Steenweg, R., Fisher, J. T., . . . Boutin, S.

(2015). REVIEW: Wildlife camera trapping: A review and recommendations for linking

surveys to ecological processes. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52(3), 675-685.

doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12432

Honeycutt, J. (2019, March 14). The Truth About Deer and Urbanization. Retrieved from

https://www.realtree.com/deer-hunting/articles/the-truth-about-deer-and-urbanization

Kays, R., Parsons, A. W., Baker, M. C., Kalies, E. L., Forrester, T., Costello, R., . . . Mcshea, W.

J. (2016). Does hunting or hiking affect wildlife communities in protected areas? Journal

of Applied Ecology, 54(1), 242-252. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12700

Meek, P. D., Ballard, G., Claridge, A., Kays, R., Moseby, K., O’Brien, T., . . . Townsend, S.

(2014). Recommended guiding principles for reporting on camera trapping research.

Biodiversity and Conservation, 23(9), 2321-2343. doi:10.1007/s10531-014-0712-8

Parsons, A. W., Forrester, T., Mcshea, W. J., Baker-Whatton, M. C., Millspaugh, J. J., & Kays, R.

(2017). Do occupancy or detection rates from camera traps reflect deer density? Journal of

Mammalogy, 98(6), 1547-1557. doi:10.1093/jmammal/gyx128

Potratz, E., Brown, J., Gallo, T., Anchor, C., Santymire, R. (2019). Effects of demography and

urbanization on stress and body condition in urban white-tailed deer. Urban Ecosystems.

22. 10.1007/s11252-019-00856-8.

Rovero, F., Tobler, M., & Sanderson, J. (2010). Camera trapping for inventorying terrestrial

vertebrates. Manual on field recording techniques and protocols for All Taxa Biodiversity

Inventories and Monitoring. The Belgian National Focal Point to the Global Taxonomy

Initiative, 8, 100-128.