Attributes of Remote Camera Stations on Moscow Mountain in Latah County, ID, USA (10/20/20-5/30/21)
Dates
Publication Date
2022-10-05
Start Date
2020-10-20
End Date
2021-07-31
Citation
Kaitlyn Strickfaden and Timothy Link, 2022, Attributes of Remote Camera Stations on Moscow Mountain in Latah County, ID, USA (10/20/20-5/30/21): U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.21429/bma6-xn17.
Summary
Attributes of remote camera stations on Moscow Mountain in Latah County, ID including georeferencing information and camera deployment information. Remote cameras were used to collect data on snow presence, snow depth, and wildlife detections on Moscow Mountain in Latah County, ID, USA. Reconyx Hyperfire I and Hyperfire II cameras were used and set to take hourly timelapse images and motion-triggered images. The cameras were deployed from October 2020 - May 2021.
Summary
Attributes of remote camera stations on Moscow Mountain in Latah County, ID including georeferencing information and camera deployment information. Remote cameras were used to collect data on snow presence, snow depth, and wildlife detections on Moscow Mountain in Latah County, ID, USA. Reconyx Hyperfire I and Hyperfire II cameras were used and set to take hourly timelapse images and motion-triggered images. The cameras were deployed from October 2020 - May 2021.
Snow conditions and dynamics are changing due to climate change. Changes to snow impact snow-dependent species through loss of snow cover needed for survival and fitness, while changes to snow impact snow-inhibited species through changes in energy expenditure, access to food, and predation risk. These data were used to create a model predicting snow disappearance dates (SDD) at our camera sites, which we could then use to map SDDs across our entire study area and identify priority areas of conservation for snow-dependent wildlife. We found that high-elevation areas, north-facing aspects, and cold-air pools retained snow latest. These data were also used to model the probability of deer presence at camera sites dependent on snow conditions. We found that deer respond negatively to increased snow density and respond slightly positively to increased snow hardness.
