Welcome to the interactive web schedule for the 2019 Midwest Fish & Wildlife Conference! Please note, this event has passed. To return to the main Conference website, go to: www.midwestfw.org.

For tips on navigating this schedule, click HELPFUL INFO below.

CONFERENCE SCHEDULE UPDATES & CHANGES: As a result of the prolonged government shutdown, we experienced a number of cancellations and changes to the schedule. Cancellations and changes are listed here (as of January 26, 2019). 

Sign up or log in to bookmark your favorites and sync them to your phone or calendar.

Poster [clear filter]
Tuesday, January 29

6:00pm EST

(P87) Influence of Spatial Alignment on Photographic Detection Rates at Remotely Triggered Camera Stations
AUTHORS. Edward Davis, Western Illinois University; Tim Swearingen, Western Illinois University; Robert Klaver, U.S. Geological Survey; Charles Anderson, Colorado Parks and Wildlife; Christopher DePerno, North Carolina State University; Jonathan Jenks, South Dakota State University; Robert Bluett, Illinois Department of Natural Resources; Christopher Jacques, Western Illinois University

ABSTRACT. Remotely triggered cameras can provide a cost-effective, non-invasive approach for investigating a variety of natural history and conservation concerns for various species. Trail camera performance is influenced by a wide range of factors, though no studies have rigorously evaluated potential sources of sampling bias (e.g., camera type, relative position) on overexposure (i.e., capturing the flash of one camera by another) events within paired camera station (i.e., 2 camera traps placed perpendicular to animal travel corridors) designs. We evaluated potential effects of camera type (Browning™ Recon Force, Moultrie™ M-880 Series, Reconyx™ HC 600 Hyperfire) and relative camera position (directly aligned vs. offset from one another [i.e., staggered]) on wildlife photographs recorded and overexposure events across 48 camera stations deployed during summer 2017. Total number of wildlife photographs varied by camera model and alignment (model × alignment interaction, F<sub>2,42</sub> = 5.56, P = 0.007); Reconyx and Browning cameras detected more wildlife photographs at aligned camera stations whereas Moultrie cameras detected more wildlife photographs at staggered camera stations. Further, the number of overexposure events varied (F<sub>1,46</sub> = 35.24, P = 0.001) between aligned (mean = 3.56, SE = 0.42, n = 25) and staggered (mean = 0.00, SE = 0.46, n = 23) camera stations. Mean percent overexposure for aligned stations was 5.63 (SE = 1.02, range = 23.91). We documented no overexposure events at staggered camera stations and no difference (F<sub>2,45</sub> = 0.05, P = 0.95) in numbers of exposure events across camera types.  We replicated our study during summer 2018 with 40 camera stations (Browning<sup>TM</sup>, Moultrie<sup>TM</sup>) and will report composite statistics and any yearly effect in our poster presentation.  We recommend that future use of paired camera stations for research, inventory, or monitoring of wildlife consider staggering the placement of cameras to minimize overexposure events of target species.

Tuesday January 29, 2019 6:00pm - 9:00pm EST
  Poster, Wildlife Techniques

6:00pm EST

(P88) Supplementing Traditional Songbird Nest Box Monitoring with Trail and FLIR Camera Technology
AUTHORS. Sayre D. Stejbach, Donald P. Althoff – University of Rio Grande

ABSTRACT. Monitoring songbird nest boxes with visits every 4-7 days is common place.  However, this frequency often does not reveal the onset of incubation, feeding of nestlings, nor apparent fledgling within 1-2 days of occurrence.  As part of long-term monitoring of bluebird/tree swallow productivity in southeast Ohio, we evaluated the use of both trail cameras positioned close to boxes (3-5 meters; 20 of 125 boxes in our network) and a FLIR camera during box inspections to determine egg temperatures without handling the eggs to supplement our standard visit protocol.  Pre-incubation temperatures vs. incubation temperatures were sufficiently different for eastern bluebirds (27C) and tree swallows (24C) eggs to indicate when 3-, 4-, or 5-egg clutches were maxed out.  This information guided our deployment of trail cameras to further document incubation and nestling activity.  We were able to capture via digital images a variety of activity of secondary cavity species. However, we had to review up to 4,000 images for a single camera per day as a result of windy and sometimes fast-moving clouds setting off the motion sensor when no bird was present.  To combat this, we designed a simple, low cost, easily attached tube to the trail camera housing to restrict the field of view of the motion without reducing the visual field of the camera itself nor permanently modifying the unit.  This resulted in 50-95% fewer photos per day per camera without apparent loss of capturing breeding activity of songbirds using the boxes with 3 exceptions. We recommend use of this blinder-type tube to prevent a large number of digital images being recorded to the memory card that have no animal activity to conserve battery life of the trail camera and reduce lab time spent reviewing the digital image data set. 

Tuesday January 29, 2019 6:00pm - 9:00pm EST
  Poster, Wildlife Techniques

Filter sessions
Apply filters to sessions.
  • Main Agenda Item
  • Poster
  • S01: Using Standardized Assessments to Evaluate Harvest Regulations: Advancing Science-Based Fisheries Management
  • S02: Eastern Massasauga Conservation - Management - Recovery
  • S03: Application of environmental DNA-based tools for aquatic invasive species monitoring and management
  • S04: Great Lakes Trophic Structure: Innovations and ongoing studies of predatory fishes
  • S05: Migratory wildlife collisions with manmade structures: monitoring - prevention - patterns from collision data
  • S06: Considering New Paradigms in the Management of Beaver - Trout - Riparian Habitats
  • S07: Use of Acoustic Telemetry to Inform Fisheries Management Across Midwestern US and Canada
  • S08: Science in service to wetlands conservation and wildlife management in the lower Great Lakes region: history - status - state of the art
  • S09: Carbon Dioxide As An Aquatic Resource Management Tool
  • S10: The Ohio Biodiversity Conservation Partnership: An Innovative University-State Agency Partnership for Conservation in Ohio
  • S11: Dreissenid Mussels: Advancements in control - detection - management - biology
  • S12: Reading the aquatic landscape and connecting restoration design
  • S13: Sea Grant role in communicating needs to inform research and conservation
  • S14: Bridging the Gap between Fish and Wildlife: Discussions on Multi-Species Interactions and Ecosystem Stability
  • S15: Collaborating with community members: the human side of fish and wildlife management and research
  • S16: Agriculture and Wildlife Coexistence in the Midwest United States
  • Student Event
  • T01: Fisheries: Great Lakes I
  • T02: Wildlife: Urban-Wildlife Conflict
  • T03: Fisheries: Behavior & Physiology
  • T04: Wildlife: Wetland Conservation
  • T05: Lightning Talk Session: Fisheries
  • T06: Human Dimensions: Fisheries I
  • T07: Fisheries: Rivers & Streams
  • T08: Wildlife: Waterfowl
  • T09: Human Dimensions: Wildlife
  • T10: Fisheries: Invasive Species I
  • T11: Fisheries: Fish Conservation
  • T12: Wildlife: Cervids
  • T13: Fisheries: Habitat
  • T14: Fisheries: Great Lakes II
  • T15: Fisheries: Lakes & Reservoirs
  • T16: Fisheries: Invertebrates
  • T17: Wildlife: Mammals
  • T18: Human Dimensions: Policy & Engagement
  • T19: Fisheries: Early Life History
  • T20: Wildlife: Upland I
  • T21: Fisheries: Invasive Species II
  • T22: Wildlife: Turtles
  • T23: Fisheries: Big Rivers
  • T24: Wildlife: Upland II
  • T25: Fisheries: Techniques
  • T26: Fisheries: Invasive Species III
  • T27: Wildlife: Avian
  • T28: Lightning Talk Session: Wildlife
  • T29: Human Dimensions: Fisheries II
  • Workshop