Deere, N.J. et al
Mammal detection data for the SAFE project site, Sabah, Malaysian Borneo, 2015 [HMTF]
Cite this dataset as:
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
Download/Access
PLEASE NOTE:
By accessing or using this dataset, you agree to the terms of the relevant licence agreement(s). You will ensure that this dataset is cited in any publication that describes research in which the data have been used.
© University of Kent 2017
This dataset is made available under the terms of the Open Government Licence
https://doi.org/10.5285/62774180-ae72-4873-9482-e8be3935f533

Publication date: 2017-09-18
View numbers valid from 01 June 2023 Download numbers valid from 20 June 2024 (information prior to this was not collected)
Format
Comma-separated values (CSV)
Spatial information
Study area
Spatial representation type
Tabular (text)
Spatial reference system
WGS 84
Temporal information
Temporal extent
2015-05-20 to 2015-10-08
Provenance & quality
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.
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.
Licensing and constraints
This dataset is made available under the terms of the Open Government Licence
Cite this dataset as:
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
© University of Kent 2017
Related
This dataset is included in the following collections
Correspondence/contact details
Deere, N.
University of Kent
School of Anthropology and Conservation, Marlowe Building
Canterbury
Kent
CT2 7NR
UK
njd21@kent.ac.uk
Canterbury
Kent
CT2 7NR
UK
Authors
Baking, E.L.
Universiti Malaysia Sabah
Bernard, H.
Universiti Malaysia Sabah
Reynolds, G.
South East Asia Rainforest Research Partnership (SEARRP)
Wearn, O.R.
Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London
Other contacts
Rights holder
University of Kent
Custodian
NERC EDS Environmental Information Data Centre
info@eidc.ac.uk
Publisher
NERC Environmental Information Data Centre
info@eidc.ac.uk