Listening and watching: do camera traps or acoustic sensors more efficiently detect wild chimpanzees in an open habitat?

1. With one million animal species at risk of extinction, there is an urgent need to regularly monitor threatened species. However, in practice this is challenging, especially with wide-ranging, elusive and cryptic species or those that occur at low density. 2. Here we compare two non-invasive methods, passive acoustic monitoring (n=12) and camera trapping (n=53), to detect chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in a savanna-woodland mosaic habitat at the Issa Valley, Tanzania. With occupancy modelling we evaluate the efficacy of each method, using the estimated number of sampling days needed to establish chimpanzee absence with 95% probability, as our measure of efficacy. 3. Passive acoustic monitoring was more efficient than camera trapping in detecting wild chimpanzees. Detectability varied over seasons, likely due to social and ecological factors that influence party size and vocalization rate. The acoustic method can infer chimpanzee absence with less than ten days of recordings in the field during the late dry season, the period of highest detectability, which was five times faster than the visual method. 4. Synthesis and applications: Despite some technical limitations, we demonstrate that passive acoustic monitoring is a powerful tool for species monitoring. Its applicability in evaluating presence/absence, especially but not exclusively for loud call species, such as cetaceans, elephants, gibbons or chimpanzees provides a more efficient way of monitoring populations and inform conservation plans to mediate species-loss

Noninvasive Technologies for Primate Conservation in the 21st Century

Observing and quantifying primate behavior in the wild is challenging. Human presence affects primate behavior and habituation of new, especially terrestrial, individuals is a time-intensive process that carries with it ethical and health concerns, especially during the recent pandemic when primates are at even greater risk than usual. As a result, wildlife researchers, including primatologists, have increasingly turned to new technologies to answer questions and provide important data related to primate conservation. Tools and methods should be chosen carefully to maximize and improve the data that will be used to answer the research questions. We review here the role of four indirect methods—camera traps, acoustic monitoring, drones, and portable field labs—and improvements in machine learning that offer rapid, reliable means of combing through large datasets that these methods generate. We describe key applications and limitations of each tool in primate conservation, and where we anticipate primate conservation technology moving forward in the coming years