Comparative efficiency of eDNA, camera traps and scat surveys to detect a semi-aquatic mammal across multiple catchments
Simon LacombeiD, Sébastien DevillardiD, Louise d'Hollande, Yann Raulet, Vincent Sablain, Louis Barbu, Geoffrey Didier, Raphaël MathevetiD, Claude MiaudiD, Clément Oyon, Eve Le Pommelet, Sebastien Richarte, Serge Rouvière, Alice ValentiniiD, Nathalie Vazzoler-Antoine, Olivier GiméneziD
Abstract
Semi-aquatic mammals lie at the intersection of several key conservation issues such as wetland deterioration or species invasions, and monitoring their distribution in space and time is essential to inform conservation strategies. However, gathering information about their presence is challenging due to their elusive lifestyle and generally low abundance. The Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra), a near-threatened and strictly protected species in Europe, is currently recolonizing part of its historical range. Its high conservation interest, combined with a dynamic more commonly associated with range-expanding or invasive species, makes it a particularly compelling case study. Otter monitoring has traditionally relied on scat surveys, but recent environmental DNA (eDNA) and camera-trapping initiatives have emerged offering promising complementary tools. Yet, these approaches have rarely been formally compared, either to one another or across regions. Here, we compared the efficiency of spraint surveys, camera traps, and eDNA for detecting otters, and assessed how their performance varied among four catchments in southern France where the species is known to be present. All three methods provided otter detections with varying efficiency. Scat surveys were the most effective method, with an average detection probability of 0.71 and no strong variability between catchments. Although camera-traps had the lowest detection rate, they provided detections at two of the four sites where no spraint was found, highlighting the complementarity of these two approaches. Detection rates varied greatly between individual cameras rather than between catchments, underscoring sensitivity to camera-placement. eDNA showed important variability between catchments, with detection probabilities differing by roughly sixfold across regions. All in all, our results highlight differences in efficiency between methods and across environmental conditions, and show the value of combining approaches for future monitoring programs.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Field percentile
- 31th percentile
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Fishing for mammals: landscape-level monitoring of terrestrial and semi-aquatic communities using eDNA from lotic ecosystems
N. G. Sales, M. McKenzie, … A. McDevitt·bioRxiv·May 9, 2019
- Mink on the brink: Comparing survey methods for detecting a Critically Endangered carnivore, the European mink Mustela lutreola
E. Croose, R. Hanniffy, … L. Harrington·bioRxiv·Jul 12, 2022
- Environmental DNA enables rapid detection of invasive coypu and complements camera trapping
Cyrielle Ballester, Simon Lacombe, … Olivier Giménez·bioRxiv·Sep 15, 2026
- Species ecology, behavior, and substrate type shape eDNA detection of mammals at savanna waterholes
Irmgard Sedlmayr, Janine R. Baxter, … Tamara Schenekar·bioRxiv·Oct 13, 2026
- Effects of scent lure on camera trap detections vary across mammalian predator and prey species
D. Holinda, J. Burgar, C. Burton·bioRxiv·Jan 30, 2020
- A comparison of eDNA to camera trapping for assessment of terrestrial mammal diversity
K. Leempoel, T. Hebert, E. A. Hadly·bioRxiv·May 10, 2019