Sherman traps, bucket cameras, eDNA—oh, my: A comparative study of small mammal monitoring methods

Abstract

Small mammals play vital roles across trophic levels and are highly sensitive to habitat disturbances, making them ideal indicators of grassland ecosystem health. A variety of passive and active survey methods exist to monitor mammalian communities, but their effectiveness can vary due to differences in species’ body size, behavior, and activity patterns. As such, identifying the most effective survey techniques is critical for improving species detection and strengthening monitoring efforts. In this study, we compared several methods, live trapping, bucket camera traps, and airborne environmental DNA (eDNA), to assess small mammal species richness across 10 restored prairie sites in north‐central Illinois and western Indiana in 2023. Our results showed limited overlap in species detections among the methods. Bucket cameras recorded the highest species richness, detecting 8 species, while both airborne eDNA and live trapping identified 5 species each. Live trapping yielded the most precise species identifications, whereas bucket cameras provided the broadest representation of community composition across sites. No single method captured the full extent of community diversity, highlighting the importance of a multi‐method approach. These findings offer valuable insights for optimizing small mammal monitoring strategies in restored grassland ecosystems.