Box and Bucket Camera Traps Yield Similar Detection Results for Small Terrestrial Mammals

Mary Weiss¹, Claire Rohrer¹, Charlie Eichelberger², Elle Groff¹, Kevin Bratina¹, Alyssa Lutz¹, and Aaron Haines^1,*

¹Millersville University, PO Box 1002, Millersville, PA 17551. ²Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program, Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, 800 Waterfront Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15222. *Corresponding authors.

Northeastern Naturalist, Volume 32, Issue 3 (2025): 422–436

First published early online: 8 September 2025

Abstract
Small terrestrial mammals are vital to ecosystems but receive less conservation attention than larger species. Camera trapping offers a non-invasive monitoring method but faces challenges in detecting small terrestrial mammals. We compared 3 camera-trap designs—open, box, and bucket—across 15 sites in Pennsylvania, deploying 45 cameras for 3375 trap nights. Box (n = 625) and bucket traps (n = 399) obtained significantly more images than open traps (n = 229) (P < 0.01). Open traps detected mice faster (1 median day to first detection, P < 0.01) but failed to detect voles or shrews. Box traps recorded the most mice (n = 537) and voles (n = 71), while bucket traps detected the most shrews (n = 23). Our findings highlight the effectiveness of enclosed designs in improving detection of small terrestrial mammals.

Download Full-text pdf (Accessible only to subscribers. To subscribe click here.)