2026-10-06T14:09:46Z https://api.figshare.com/v2/oai

oai:figshare.com:article/34007373 2026-10-01T13:10:52Z category_24235 category_24217 category_26932 category_26935 item_type_3 month_year_10_2026

This link contains the R script used to undertake the analyses in the published manuscript "Not all cover is equal: a multi-material comparison of artificial cover boards for small vertebrate surveys in subtropical Queensland, Australia". Jon-Paul Emery (9507089) Vanessa Gorecki (25118504) Callum Casteel (25118468) Eden Hurn (25118470) Chloe Anne Mille (25118471) Jarrod Kath (20373087) Terrestrial ecology Community ecology (excl. invasive species ecology) Conservation and biodiversity Environmental assessment and monitoring Artificial Cover Boards, Reptiles, Monitoring, Vertebrates, Detection probability Artificial cover boards (ACBs) are increasingly used globally for surveying small vertebrates. Comparative studies assessing multiple ACB types simultaneously; however, are uncommon, especially in subtropical regions. This study evaluated detection probabilities for reptiles, amphibians, and mammals using four ACB materials (corrugated tin, timber, roofing tiles, and carpet) in southeast Queensland, Australia. A brief (30 second) active search of a 1 m2 unstructured plot was also undertaken alongside each ACB check to provide a background encounter rate. We conducted 9,075 surveys across 20 sites (each with a 5x5 grid) over two years. We used Bayesian logistic regression to quantify detection probabilities and examined relationships with environmental variables including NDVI, rainfall, and temperature. Surveys yielded 1,137 vertebrate detections (950 reptiles, 108 mammals, 79 amphibians). Mean reptile detection was highest under timber (β = 3.54, 95% BCI 2.91–4.20); however, corrugated tin and carpet also exceeded detections over roofing tiles. Tin yielded the highest detection rates for mammals and amphibians, but ACBs overall were less useful for these taxa. Seasonal variation markedly influenced effectiveness: carpet outperformed other materials during winter, whereas tin and timber were optimal in summer for reptiles, corresponding with temperature changes under the cover boards. Species-specific analyses highlighted some clear material preferences; notably, the threatened Delma torquata, where detection was 6.3 times higher under carpet compared to roofing tiles. Our results suggest ACBs are an effective tool for surveying reptile communities within subtropical environments. We recommend using a combination of timber, tin, and carpet to maximise reptile detection probabilities, emphasising seasonal variation and deployment duration as critical considerations. Future research should explicitly compare ACBs with traditional methods including active searching to assess trapping efficiency, and use of more environmentally friendly cover boards such as coir. 2026-10-01T13:10:52Z Dataset Dataset 10.6084/m9.figshare.34007373.v1 https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/This_link_contains_the_R_script_used_to_undertake_the_analyses_in_the_published_manuscript_Not_all_cover_is_equal_a_multi-material_comparison_of_artificial_cover_boards_for_small_vertebrate_surveys_in_subtropical_Queensland_Australia_/34007373 CC BY 4.0