This data set contains stacked detection matrices for 28 recorded mammal species across 115 sampling locations at the Stability of Altered Forest Ecosystems (SAFE) project site located in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo. Information for each camera trap sampling location, including spatial information and sampling effort is included. Data were collected in order to determine the contribution of carbon-based policies to biodiversity conservation in agricultural land-use mosaics. These data are essential to the development of the occupancy detection matrix. Data were collected in 2015 during a project which was included in the NERC Human-modified tropical forest (HMTF) Programme.
Format of the dataset : Comma-separated values (CSV)
You must cite: Deere, N.J.; Guillera-Arroita, G.; Baking, E.L.; Bernard, H.; Pfeifer, M.; Reynolds, G.; Wearn, O.R.; Davies, Z.G.; Struebig, M.J. (2017). Mammal detection data for the SAFE project site, Sabah, Malaysian Borneo, 2015 [HMTF]. NERC Environmental Information Data Centre. https://doi.org/10.5285/62774180-ae72-4873-9482-e8be3935f533
Remotely-operated digital cameras (HC500 Hyperfire, Reconyx, Wisconsin, U.S.A.) were deployed at 130 locations across the 203 landscape between May and September 2015. These locations were separated by a mean distance of 1.4 km and distributed across an elevational gradient (mean=376 m.a.s.l.; range=64-735 m.a.s.l.). Accounting for theft, vandalism and malfunction, data were retrieved from 120 locations. Sampling was stratified within four broad habitat classes to capture the heterogeneity of the landscape: continuous logged forest, highly disturbed forest, isolated forest remnants and oil palm plantations. Due to the number of cameras available, data collection was completed over two rotations, each comprising 65 locations. Single units were deployed for 42 consecutive nights per location, yielding a total survey effort of 4,669 camera nights. Cameras were positioned at a standardised height of 30cm, on low resistance travel routes (e.g. riparian areas, logging roads, skid trails) and off-trail to account for inter- and intra-specific differences in habitat use.
Prior to analyses, all images that could not be identified to species level were discarded (blurred images and photos of non-target species, equating to 17.6% of data). A detection matrix was developed for each species, whereby 42-day sampling periods were divided into six, seven-day temporal replicates. Any camera site active for fewer than seven days was excluded from analysis, leaving 115 analytical units each with 2-6 replicates. The detection matrices denote species presence ('1'), absence ('0') or camera trap malfunction ('NA') during each sampling interval.
During deployment, GPS coordinates of the specific site were documented. During the processing of camera trap data we further documented the exact date and time for deployment, collection or failure in the event of malfunction. These data were used to provide an indication of sampling effort.
University of Kent
School of Anthropology and Conservation, Marlowe Building