Back

Comparative efficiency of eDNA, camera traps and scat surveys to detect a semi-aquatic mammal across multiple catchments

Lacombe, S.; Devillard, S.; D'Hollande, L.; Raulet, Y.; Sablain, V.; Barbu, L.; Didier, G.; Mathevet, R.; Miaud, C.; Oyon, C.; Le Pommelet, E.; Richarte, S.; Rouviere, S.; Valentini, A.; Vazzoler-Antoine, N.; Gimenez, O.

2026-04-29 ecology
10.64898/2026.04.28.721338 bioRxiv
Show 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.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Biological Conservation
43 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.3%
2
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.3%
3
Global Ecology and Conservation
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.8%
4
Journal of Applied Ecology
35 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
5
Diversity and Distributions
26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
6
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.2%
7
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.2%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 32%
3.9%
50% of probability mass above
9
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.9%
10
Animal Conservation
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
11
Molecular Ecology Resources
161 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.7%
12
Environmental DNA
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
13
Conservation Genetics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.3%
14
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.0%
15
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
16
Biodiversity and Conservation
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
17
Conservation Science and Practice
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
18
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 44%
1.6%
19
Ecological Indicators
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.6%
20
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
21
Ecography
50 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
22
One Health
29 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
23
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
24
Conservation Letters
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
25
Biological Invasions
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.9%
26
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.9%
27
Journal of Environmental Management
11 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
28
Ecological Informatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
29
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 65%
0.7%
30
Molecular Ecology
304 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%