Ecology and Evolution - 2021 - Hereward - Raspberry Pi nest cameras An affordable tool for remote behavioral and

Received: 18 May 2021 | Revised: 13 August 2021 | Accepted: 1 September 2021
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.8127
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Raspberry Pi nest cameras: An affordable tool for remote

behavioral and conservation monitoring of bird nests
Hannah F. R. Hereward1 | Richard J. Facey1 | Alyssa J. Sargent1,2 | Sara Roda1,3 |

Matthew L. Couldwell1,4 | Emma L. Renshaw1 | Katie H. Shaw1,5 | Jack J. Devlin1,6 |
Sarah E. Long1 | Ben J. Porter1,7 | Jodie M. Henderson1 | Christa L. Emmett1,8 |
Laura Astbury1 | Luke Maggs9 | Sean A. Rands10 | Robert J. Thomas1
1
Cardiff School of Biosciences, Cardiff
University, Cardiff, UK Abstract
2
Department of Biology, University of 1. Bespoke (custom-built) Raspberry Pi cameras are increasingly popular research
Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
tools in the fields of behavioral ecology and conservation, because of their com-
3
A Rocha, Cruzhina, Alvor, Portugal
4
parative flexibility in programmable settings, ability to be paired with other sen-
Gypseywood Cottage, York, UK
5 sors, and because they are typically cheaper than commercially built models.
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
6
University of Kentucky, Lexington, 2. Here, we describe a novel, Raspberry Pi-based camera system that is fully port-
Kentucky, USA able and yet weatherproof—especially to humidity and salt spray. The camera was
7
Tan y Garn, Rhiw, UK
paired with a passive infrared sensor, to create a movement-triggered camera ca-
8
Department of Applied Sciences, University
of the West of England, Bristol, UK
pable of recording videos over a 24-hr period. We describe an example deploy-
9
D3 Data Driven Decisions, Cardiff, UK ment involving “retro-fitting” these cameras into artificial nest boxes on Praia
10
School of Biological Sciences, University of Islet, Azores archipelago, Portugal, to monitor the behaviors and interspecific
Bristol, Bristol, UK
interactions of two sympatric species of storm-petrel (Monteiro's storm-petrel
Correspondence Hydrobates monteiroi and Madeiran storm-petrel Hydrobates castro) during their
Hannah F. R. Hereward, Cardiff School of
respective breeding seasons.
Biosciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff,
Wales, UK. 3. Of the 138 deployments, 70% of all deployments were deemed to be “Successful”
Email: hannah.hereward@gmail.com
(Successful was defined as continuous footage being recorded for more than one
Funding information hour without an interruption), which equated to 87% of the individual 30-s videos.
Natural Environment Research Council
The bespoke cameras proved to be easily portable between 54 different nests and
Great Western Four+ Doctoral Training
Partnership studentship, Grant/Award reasonably weatherproof (~14% of deployments classed as “Partial” or “Failure”
Number: NE/L002434/1; Cardiff University;
deployments were specifically due to the weather/humidity), and we make further
Project CASE partner -Eco-explore
Community Interest Company trouble-shooting suggestions to mitigate additional weather-related failures.
4. Here, we have shown that this system is fully portable and capable of coping with
salt spray and humidity, and consequently, the camera-build methods and scripts
could be applied easily to many different species that also utilize cavities, burrows,
and artificial nests, and can potentially be adapted for other wildlife monitoring
situations to provide novel insights into species-specific daily cycles of behaviors
and interspecies interactions.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2021 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Ecology and Evolution. 2021;11:14585–14597. www.ecolevol.org | 14585

20457758, 2021, 21, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.8127 by IFTO - Instituto Federal do Tocantins, Wiley Online Library on [09/05/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
14586 | HEREWARD et al.
KEYWORDS
Animal behavior, bespoke camera, burrow-nesting, interspecific interactions, nest box,

Raspberry Pi, seabirds, storm-petrel
1 | I NTRO D U C TI O N One”) costs ~33% less than a comparable prebuilt unit. However, it is
important to note that these bespoke cameras require additional ex-
The use of photography and video systems to remotely monitor pertise and time to design, setup, and troubleshoot (Cox et al., 2012;
wildlife has become increasingly popular (see reviews: Cutler & Hereward et al., Under review).
Swann, 1999; Edney & Wood, 2020; Hereward et al., Under re- Raspberry Pi has been used as the foundation to develop bespoke
view; Swann et al., 2004; Trolliet et al., 2014). This is because units to study a variety of taxa (see recent reviews: Hereward et al.,
remote-monitoring cameras can greatly reduce the time and effort Under review; Jolles, 2021), including video monitoring of free living
required to collect observational field data and are typically less in- fish (Mouy et al., 2020); laboratory studies of fish behaviors (Jolles
vasive than direct observation by researchers in the field (Cutler & et al., 2018); in situ Lemming (Lemmus spp. and Dicrostonyx spp.)
Swann, 1999; Trolliet et al., 2014). However, designing, implement- subnival behaviors (Kalhor et al., 2019); behavior, surface body tem-
ing, and maintaining camera systems can require technical exper- perature, and respiration rate of hibernating meadow jumping mice
tise; the presence of the camera can potentially affect an animal's (Zapus hudsonius) (Kallmyer et al., 2019); behaviors of captive song
behavior; and the type of data collected can be limited (Caravaggi birds (Alarcón-Nieto et al., 2018); behaviors of birds at baited traps
et al., 2020; Cutler & Swann, 1999; Reif & Tornberg, 2006; Trolliet (Nazir, Newey, et al., 2017); behavioral dynamics and interindividual/
et al., 2014). Nevertheless, infrared-sensitive, movement-triggered interspecific interactions at bird feeders (McBride & Courter, 2019;
video cameras now enable greater flexibility than earlier designs in Youngblood, 2020); and breeding behaviors of cavity-nesting birds
remote surveillance of wildlife (Scheibe et al., 2008), and videomon- (Prinz et al., 2016).
itoring has increasingly been used to aid population monitoring and Some of these papers specifically describe the building meth-
to examine behavioral and ecological interactions (Meek et al., 2014; ods of the camera setup, where the costs ranged from ~$85 USD
Trolliet et al., 2014). (Youngblood, 2020) to ~1,000€ (Zárybnická et al., 2016). A range
There are a wide range of camera systems available (see reviews: of different power sources were used: (a) mains power or large
Cutler & Swann, 1999; Edney & Wood, 2020; Hereward et al., Under batteries (60 Ah 12 V battery), occasionally attached to solar pan-
review; Swann et al., 2004; Trolliet et al., 2014), but these can be els, providing power lasting 6.5–7 days (Nazir, Newey, et al., 2017;
split broadly into (a) commercially (vendor) built systems (e.g., Meek Prinz et al., 2016; Zárybnická et al., 2016); (b) smaller powerpacks of
& Pittet, 2012; Trolliet et al., 2014) or (b) bespoke (user-built) mi- 10,000–20,000 mAh often attached to solar panels lasting 4–7 days
crocomputer systems (Allan et al., 2018; Greenville & Emery, 2016; (McBride & Courter, 2019; Youngblood, 2020); and (c) D-cell bat-
Johnston & Cox, 2017). teries in series, creating 70,000 mAh, which lasted at least 14 days
Commercially built systems are typically easier to use, with little (Mouy et al., 2020). For storing the recorded image/video files, var-
setup time or knowledge of the system required (Cox et al., 2012; ious designs coded the Raspberry Pi to upload the files from the
Hereward et al., Under review; Meek & Pittet, 2012). However, their SD card to “the cloud”, thus avoiding the need to remove the SD
deployment settings are typically less flexible, specifically in the card periodically and reducing the likelihood of the SD card becom-
length of time cameras can be left during deployments due to lim- ing full (Alarcón-Nieto et al., 2018; McBride & Courter, 2019; Prinz
ited battery life and image/footage storage capabilities, and due to et al., 2016; Youngblood, 2020; Zárybnická et al., 2016). However,
the limited programmable settings available (Cox et al., 2012; Prinz Mouy et al. (2020) were not able to connect their system to a net-
et al., 2016; Reif & Tornberg, 2006). By contrast, simple programma- work during deployment and so found that their SD card capacity
ble computers, or circuit boards, such as Raspberry Pi (www.raspb (200 GB) became the limiting factor for storage over the 8–14 days
errypi.org) or Arduino (www.arduino.cc), have been increasingly that their devices were deployed, recording a maximum of 212 hr.
used by researchers (Hereward et al., Under review). These technol- However, Mouy et al. (2020) found that during trials, using USB stor-
ogies have allowed greater scope for the development of purpose- age rather than SD storage used more energy, therefore reducing
built cameras and for addressing specific research questions (Allan battery life. USB storage was also less reliable, due to having a more
et al., 2018; Greenville & Emery, 2016; Johnston & Cox, 2017; fragile connection, for example, vibrations from the boat disrupting
Jolles, 2021). The increasing popularity of these bespoke units is not the connection prior to deployment (Mouy et al., 2020). In compar-
only driven by their comparative flexibility in programmable settings, ison, Kallmyer et al. (2019) successfully used a 32 GB USB for data
but also by the reduced costs and by the cameras being combined storage. Regarding cameras, only Youngblood (2020) did not use a
with other sensors, for example, temperature loggers (McBride & camera, but instead paired passive integrated transponders on the
Courter, 2019). Do-it-yourself, self-assembly cameras can be pro- birds, with a radiofrequency identification reader at the feeders.
duced more cheaply than commercially available models; for exam- The rest of these studies used a variety of different camera types
ple, Cox et al. (2012) calculated that their bespoke system (“System including Pi NoIR (Kallmyer et al., 2019; Nazir, Newey, et al., 2017;
HEREWARD et al. | 14587
Prinz et al., 2016) or Raspberry Pi camera module v2 (Alarcón-Nieto various bespoke camera models described in the scientific literature,
et al., 2018; Mouy et al., 2020), often combined with some form of few combine mitigation strategies for both salt spray and humidity
passive infrared (PIR) detection system (Nazir, Newey, et al., 2017; alongside the need for easy access and full portability between nests
Prinz et al., 2016; Zárybnická et al., 2016), or using changes in pixel throughout a single breeding season. Consequently, these unique
intensity to indicate movement (Prinz et al., 2016). circumstances presented by our study system required the devel-
There are a few published papers that detail the build of cam- opment of a novel method of deployment. This included a bespoke
eras to monitor cavity-nesting species, using Raspberry Pi (Kalhor camera and housing design to be fully portable between the 150
et al., 2019; Kallmyer et al., 2019; Prinz et al., 2016) or using a Linux previously deployed artificial nest boxes on Praia Islet. These nest
FTP server control board (Zárybnická et al., 2016), including spe- boxes were initially deployed in 2000, to provide additional breed-
cifically for birds (Prinz et al., 2016; Zárybnická et al., 2016). All of ing sites for two storm-petrel species: the Monteiro's storm-petrel
these are designed so that the camera(s) (and additional modules) are Hydrobates monteiroi breeding in the “hot” season (April–September),
embedded within—and become a part of—the nest box design. This and the Madeiran storm-petrel Hydrobates castro breeding in the
is useful because the same nest box can be monitored over a long “cool” season (September–March) (Bolton et al., 2004, 2008; Bried
period. However, this is also restrictive in cases where the focal ani- et al., 2009). The camera system was required to record behaviors
mals do not end up using the specific nest box, as happened for Prinz and interspecific interactions in these artificial nests over succes-
et al. (2016) due to changes in group composition. It also reduces the sive 24-hr periods, on an isolated islet with no mains power sup-
number of different nests monitored, compared to having the possi- ply, where it is difficult to bring in bulky equipment, and where the
bility of moving a camera system between nest boxes, which would equipment would frequently be exposed to conditions of salt-laden
allow greater insight into a wider number of nests/individuals across spray and high humidity. Here, we detail how this system can be de-
each breeding season. ployed effectively in these circumstances (see appendices materials
Deploying cameras in extreme environments is technologically for full build details).
challenging due to the impact these conditions have on the perfor-
mance and degradation of the equipment being used (O'Connell
et al., 2011). However, several of the published camera systems have 2 | M ATE R I A L S A N D M E TH O DS
implemented waterproofing of the equipment. These deployments
have included cold locations and therefore frosty conditions (Kalhor We used a Raspberry Pi Zero circuit board, programmed using
et al., 2019), as well as underwater (including marine) locations Python 3.5.3, paired with a fisheye camera with infrared LED at-
where not only does the case need to be watertight but also needs tachments to create a bespoke camera small enough to fit on top
to cope with salt water and high water pressure (Greene et al., 2020; of a storm-petrel artificial nest box (Bolton et al., 2004; Figure 1,
Mouy et al., 2020; Phillips et al., 2019). Figure 2) and programmed to record when triggered by a change in
For terrestrial systems, some camera systems would be com- infrared levels (detected using a passive infrared [PIR] sensor). After
pletely exposed to rain, humidity and salt spray (if near the coast), triggering, recording lasted for 30 s with a 10-s break between each
and so mitigation has typically taken the form of water-resistant/ recording. The resulting video files were stored on a USB flash dive
waterproof casings, for example, using a Peli case (peliproduct s.co. (cf. McBride & Courter, 2019; Mouy et al., 2020). The camera hous-
uk) (Youngblood, 2020) or similar casing (e.g., Camacho et al., 2017; ing was designed to be weather resistant through the use of plastic
McBride & Courter, 2019), or a double box with drainage holes in Tupperware containers, and silicon sealant was used around holes
the outer box (Nazir et al., 2017). However, other systems have been drilled for the wiring (Figure 2). Each camera cost a total of ~£86 GBP
partially enclosed (e.g., a waterproof junction box; Prinz et al., 2016) (~$115 USD) to build, with additional costs of ~£23 GBP (~$31 USD)
due to being within a cavity/box and so less mitigation was deemed per camera housing and ~£100 GBP (~$133 USD) needed for equip-
necessary, or not encased due to being fully enclosed within the nest ment to allow the construction of multiple cameras prior to deploy-
box (e.g., Kalhor et al., 2019; Zárybnická et al., 2016). Nevertheless, ment (Figures 1 and 2; see full part details and build methods in the
despite the weather proofing of these terrestrial systems, humidity Appendix A, with costs detailed in Table A1; deployment data and
leading to condensation or frost on the camera lens still occurred Python scripts archived with Dryad; Hereward et al., 2022).
with little additional mitigation suggested, other than removing or
replacing the equipment (Camacho et al., 2017; Kalhor et al., 2019;
Kallmyer et al., 2019), and including silica gel packets within the 2.1 | Field deployment example
weatherproof casing during deployment (Youngblood, 2020).
Here, we describe a novel camera system that is fully portable Fieldwork took place across the breeding seasons of both
and yet weatherproof, which was developed to study the behavior storm-p etrel species breeding on Praia Islet, Azores: Monteiro's
of two sibling species of sympatric, nocturnal, cavity-nesting storm- storm-p etrel H. monteiroi (May–S eptember 2019) and Madeiran
petrels (Hydrobatidae) that breed on Praia Islet, an isolated, unin- storm-p etrel H. castro (early breeding season: September–
habited, volcanic islet (~12 ha) in the Azores archipelago, Portugal early-D ecember 2019 and late breeding season: mid-J anuary–
(Bolton et al., 2004; Long et al., in press). While there are now March 2020) (Praia Islet accessed under licence from Direção
Regional do Ambiente, Região Autónoma dos Açores: SAI- appropriate height above the nest (so that the footage captured
DRA/2019/1821 Proc. 116.14.03/43). Of the 150 artificial nest would be in focus at a vertical distance of ≥15 cm). One camera
boxes available, nests were selected for videomonitoring based per nest was deployed opportunistically across the subset of
upon (a) whether the nest box was occupied, (b) accessibility appropriate nests (n = 54) for 24 hr at a time, across the succes-
of the nest box, and (c) whether the lid of the box was at an sive breeding seasons. During each 24-h r deployment, at least
F I G U R E 1 Pictures illustrating the building of the Raspberry Pi camera described in this study. (a) Passive infrared (PIR) sensor, showing
the suggested positions of the sensor settings (sensors labeled with gray arrows, minimum (“min”) labeled with black arrows), the left
setting =time (set at “min”) and the right setting = sensitivity (set at 90° to min); (b) PIR sensor without the sensor cover, showing the
pin connections: white cable = VCC, gray = OUT, black = GND (labeled with respective arrows); (c) Real Time Clock (RTC) (red board,
labeled with gray arrow) already connected to the Raspberry Pi board (GPIO pins 1–10), PIR sensor cables connecting onto the Real Time
Clock 5V = white cable and GND = black and on the Raspberry Pi zero board, GPIO17 (pin 11) = gray (labeled with respective arrows); (d)
completely connected Real Time Clock and PIR sensor, labeling the HDMI and USB connector ports; (e–g) to connect the switch to the
Raspberry Pi board using two female–female cables, first remove the black covers on the switch end of the female–female cables by lifting
the black tabs (e), then remove the black covers (f), finally attach to the switch by connecting the exposed ends of the female–female cable
to two of the switch ends (g); and h) final built camera ready to be deployed labeled with each part
F I G U R E 2 Photographs of the camera

in various stages of deployment labeled
with the different parts visible. (a) The
top of the housing showing the camera
housing, main cork board that sits on top
of the nest box rim, power pack housing
and the USB cord; (b) the underside of the
housing with the main cork board again,
this time showing the camera and PIR
sensor which are held with the additional
square of cork; (c) showing where the
camera sits—on top of the nest box rim,
below the nest box lid—and showing the
different parts of the camera and (d) the
camera deployed and hidden underneath
a rock covering the artificial nest box, with
powerpack + housing to the side with a
rock on top to weigh the housing down.
Deployed on Praia islet, Graciosa, Azores
two cameras were deployed in different nests. Each camera 3 | R E S U LT S

was removed after the 24-h r period, the footage downloaded,
and then, each camera was opportunistically re-d eployed at Across the two breeding seasons, there were 138 camera deployments
another nest of suitable breeding stage. The frequency of re- in 54 different nests, which created a total of 109,183 videos (each 30 s
deployments was dependent on the available (solar) power to long) (Tables A3 and A4). Of these 138 deployments across both spe-
charge the powerpacks. cies, 70% of all deployments (n = 97) were deemed to be Successful,
In this paper, we present the technical outcomes, using a table of which equated to 86% of the individual 30-s videos (94,526, 30 s vid-
definitions, to define whether each of the deployments was a Failure, eos). A further 14% of all deployments (n = 20) were deemed to be
Partial failure (nonusable), Partial failure (usable), or a Success Partial (usable), which added an additional 13% of usable 30-s videos
(Table A2), and we detail causes of—and solutions to—any failures. (14,595, 30-s videos) (Tables A3 and A4). Combining both Successful
Alongside these technical outcomes, we were able to successfully and Partial (usable) deployments and videos together, this equated to
record and classify behaviors on the nest during the chick-rearing a total of 84% usable deployments (n = 117) and 99% useable 30-s
period, alongside interspecific interactions, where it was possible to videos (109,121, 30-s videos) (Tables A3 and A4). Partial (usable or
identify other species entering the nest cavity. Details of these be- nonusable) or total Failures accounted for 30% of deployments and
haviors and interspecific interaction observations will be available were categorized into troubleshooting and biological issues (Table 1).
elsewhere (H. F. R. Hereward, unpublished). Solutions to Failures and Partial failures are detailed in Table 2.
TA B L E 1 Counts of deployment causes of Failure, Partial failure (nonusable), and Partial failure (usable) from all deployments on Praia
islet, Graciosa, Azores
Partial Partial
Issues identified Failure (nonuseable) (useable) Total
Monteiro's storm-petrel
Troubleshooting issues Battery 2 0 2 4
Humidity, overheating, dislodged connection 4 0 3 7
Unknown issue causing break in footage 0 0 9 9
Camera placing 0 0 1 1
Biological issues Limited movement (adult incubating egg) 0 0 1 1
Limited movement (egg alone) 0 1 1 2
Madeiran storm-petrel
Troubleshooting issues Humidity, overheating, dislodged connection 9 1 1 11
Rain or nest empty 0 1 0 1
PIR sensor connection 0 0 1 1
Camera placing 0 0 1 1
Biological issues Nest empty 2 1 0 3
Total 17 4 20 41
Note: Categorized into species (Monteiro's storm-petrel Hydrobates monteiroi and Madeiran storm-petrel Hydrobates castro) and technical
troubleshooting and biological issues.
TA B L E 2 Causes of the Failure and Partial failure deployments during the breeding seasons of both storm-petrel species, and solutions to
address these causes
Broad causes of Failure/Partial

failure Specific causes Solutions
Trouble-shooting issues
Rain, Humidity, overheating, Isolated islet, where sea spray and rain are Restrict entry/exit holes to camera/powerpack boxes
dislodged connection, PIR frequent throughout the year using blue tac/glue at the holes to make it more
sensor connection, Break waterproof
in footage Use silica gel sachets in the camera/powerpack boxes to
mitigate humidity in the boxes
Take the in-nest camera apart every 6–10 deployments to
spend 24−48 hr in a sealed container with silica gel to
reduce humidity around the components
Lifting the camera once deployed sometimes Avoid moving cameras during deployment
caused connection dislodgement Replace cables/kit when worn
Battery Running out of battery led to no or few Ensure the battery is fully charged before deployment, if
recordings it continues to be a problem consider a larger capacity
battery and/or solar panels.
Camera placing Nest dimensions, including depth, varied Adjust the camera housing accordingly
Biological issues
Nest empty No or limited movement in the nest led to no or Absence of recordings indicate that the box is not (yet)
few recordings being used
Note: The causes are separated into technical trouble-shooting issues and biological issues.
4 | D I S CU S S I O N (Prinz et al., 2016; Zárybnická et al., 2016). The poweradd Pilot X7

20,000 mAh powerpack proved to have enough capacity for a 24-to
Here, we have described and demonstrated the successful build- 48-hr deployment if needed (Youngblood, 2020). This deployment
ing and deployment of a bespoke camera that is small, portable, duration could be further improved to last for longer per deployment,
weatherproof, battery-run, and with PIR motion-trigger capabilities. or to allow for more deployments, for example, by employing the
This bespoke camera, based on a Raspberry Pi microcomputer, is use of camera-specific solar panels to extend battery life (McBride &
cheaper or similarly priced to other bespoke cameras of similar build Courter, 2019; Nazir, Newey, et al., 2017; Prinz et al., 2016).
In comparison with previous nest box/cavity system designs template design could include a microphone to record vocalizations,
(e.g., Kalhor et al., 2019; Kallmyer et al., 2019; Prinz et al., 2016; and temperature and humidity modules to record changes in nest-
Zárybnická et al., 2016), our camera housing was independent of the specific environmental conditions, for example, to monitor daily,
nest box design and so completely portable, allowing easy transfer seasonal, and between-year variations in these variables, or as a
between nests throughout the breeding season, thus allowing us to comparison between natural and artificial cavities.
gain insight into a wider number of individual nesting behaviors as
well as avoiding missing out on recordings because individuals did AC K N OW L E D G M E N T S
not use an initially targeted nest box (as has occurred previously, e.g., Many thanks to other fieldwork assistants: Zoe Deakin, Alys Perry,
Prinz et al., 2016; Zárybnická et al., 2016). Eike Usher, Anthony Hereward, and Pauline Hereward. We thank
Despite the increased portability and easy access to download the Direção Regional do Ambiente, Região Autónoma dos Açores
the data, the need to frequently open up the camera housing in- for granting access to Praia Islet (HFRH license number: SAI-
creased the system's vulnerability to salt spray and humidity, and DRA/2019/1821 Proc. 116.14.03/43) and also Graciosa Natural Park
left parts vulnerable to dislodgement and degradation due to these Environmental Service for helping us access and stay on Praia Islet.
environmental conditions. Nevertheless, the weatherproofing of This work was conducted in conjunction with HFRH's PhD, which
the camera housing was generally successful or partially success- is supervised by: Dr. Robert Thomas, Dr. Frank Hailer, Dr. Renata
ful (combining “Successful” and “Partial Failure [usable]” footage; Medeiros-Mirra, Dr. Sean Rands, and Dr. Verónica Neves, and ad-
84% usable deployments and 99% of videos usable), which is simi- vised by Dr Mark Bolton and Dr. Joël Bried. HFRH is supported by
lar to some previous studies (e.g., 96% of photos usable, McBride & a NERC GW4+ Doctoral Training Partnership studentship from the
Courter, 2019) and substantially more successful than others (e.g., Natural Environment Research Council [NE/L002434/1]. We are
in Camacho et al., 2017, after 1 month of deployments, 80% of the grateful for the support from Cardiff University and additional fund-
cameras had ceased to function due to humidity and vandalism; and ing from the project CASE partner, Eco-explore Community Interest
Kalhor et al., 2019, recorded a 100% deployment success rate, but Company.
only 32% of videos were considered of high enough quality to be re-
tained for future analysis). In the present study, ~14% of deployments C O N FL I C T O F I N T E R E S T
had troubleshooting issues specifically due to the weather/humidity, We declare we have no conflict of interests.
particularly in the winter (Madeiran storm-petrel) breeding season,
which was typically cooler and wetter than the summer (Monteiro's AU T H O R C O N T R I B U T I O N S
storm-petrel) breeding season (Monteiro & Furness, 1998). This is Hannah F. R. Hereward: Conceptualization (lead); Data curation
despite mitigation efforts already employed from previously pub- (lead); Formal analysis (lead); Funding acquisition (equal); Investigation
lished papers, including housing as much of the equipment as pos- (lead); Methodology (lead); Project administration (equal); Resources
sible within waterproof casings (McBride & Courter, 2019; Prinz (equal); Software (equal); Validation (equal); Visualization (equal);
et al., 2016; Youngblood, 2020) and including silica gel packets to Writing-original draft (lead); Writing-review & editing (lead). Richard
reduce humidity within the equipment casing during deployments J. Facey: Conceptualization (equal); Methodology (equal); Software
(Youngblood, 2020). Consequently, some additional waterproofing (equal); Supervision (equal); Writing-original draft (equal); Writing-
is suggested alongside the further housing adjustments summarized review & editing (equal). Alyssa J. Sargent: Data curation (equal);
in Table 2, to aid in reducing these specific failures in future. These Methodology (equal); Writing-review & editing (equal). Sara Roda:
mitigations include placing the camera in a box of silica gel between Data curation (equal); Writing-review & editing (equal). Matthew L.
deployments, to reduce the humidity around the components, prior Couldwell: Data curation (equal); Writing-review & editing (equal).
to re-deployment. The calculated percentage success rates based on Emma L. Renshaw: Data curation (equal); Writing-review & editing
the Successful, Partial (usable), Partial (nonusable), and Failure defi- (equal). Katie H. Shaw: Data curation (equal); Writing-review & edit-
nitions could be used by researchers to estimate how many total suc- ing (equal). Jack J. Devlin: Data curation (equal); Writing-review &
cessful deployments will be needed to achieve a target sample size. editing (equal). Sarah E. Long: Data curation (equal); Writing-review
The present study provides a template for building and program- & editing (equal). Ben J. Porter: Data curation (equal); Writing-
ming a bespoke, portable camera paired with a PIR sensor, partic- review & editing (equal). Jodie M. Henderson: Data curation (equal);
ularly suitable for use in remote study locations with burrow- or Formal analysis (equal); Writing-review & editing (equal). Christa
cavity-breeding species, where camera size needs to be minimized L. Emmett: Formal analysis (equal); Methodology (equal); Writing-
and limited power is a constraining factor. Due to its portability review & editing (equal). Laura Astbury: Formal analysis (equal);
and mitigation against salt spray and humidity, this template could Methodology (equal); Writing-review & editing (equal). Luke Maggs:
be applied to a wide range of different species that utilize cavities, Methodology (equal); Resources (equal); Software (equal); Writing-
burrows, and artificial nests, or potentially adapted for other wild- review & editing (equal). Sean A. Rands: Funding acquisition (equal);
life surveillance situations, to monitor behaviors and interspecific Project administration (supporting); Supervision (equal); Validation
interactions, as demonstrated in this study. To further extend the (equal); Visualization (equal); Writing-review & editing (equal).
data-gathering capabilities of these cameras, future additions to this Robert J. Thomas: Conceptualization (equal); Funding acquisition
(equal); Methodology (equal); Project administration (supporting); University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/97805
20954090-018
Supervision (lead); Validation (equal); Visualization (equal); Writing-
Cutler, T. L., & Swann, D. E. (1999). Using remote photography in wildlife
original draft (equal); Writing-review & editing (equal). ecology: A review. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27(3), 571–581.
Edney, A. J., & Wood, M. J. (2020). Applications of digital imaging and
OPEN RESEARCH BADGES analysis in seabird monitoring and research. Ibis. 163(2), 317–337.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ibi.12871
Greene, A., Forsman, Z., Toonen, R. J., & Donahue, M. J. (2020). CoralCam:
A flexible, low-cost ecological monitoring platform. HardwareX, 7,
This article has been awarded Open Data and Open Materials e00089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ohx.2019.e00089
Badges. All materials and data are publicly accessible via the Open Greenville, A. C., & Emery, N. J. (2016). Gathering lots of data on a small
Science Framework at https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.9w0vt4bfb. budget. Science, 353(6306), 1360–1361.
Hereward, H. F. R., Facey, R. J., Sargent, A. J., Roda, S., Couldwell, M. L.,
Renshaw, E. L., Shaw, K. H., Devlin, J. J., Long, S. E., Porter, B. J.,
DATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y S TAT E M E N T Henderson, J. M., Emmett, C., Astbury, L., Maggs, L., Rands, S. A.,
Deployment data and python scripts archived with Dryad: Hereward, & Thomas, R. J. (2022). Raspberry Pi nest cameras – an affordable
Hannah et al. (2022), Raspberry Pi nest cameras -an affordable tool tool for remote behavioural and conservation monitoring of bird
nests, Dryad, Dataset. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.9w0vt4bfb
for remote behavioural and conservation monitoring of bird nests,
Hereward, H. F. R. (unpublished). Video monitoring of two sympatric,
Dryad, Dataset, https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.9w0vt4bfb. sibling species of burrow-nesting storm-petrels reveals temporal
differences in behaviours and potential threats.
ORCID Hereward, H. F. R., Facey, R. J., Caravaggi, A., Rands, S. A., & Thomas,
R. J. (Under review). Single-board, modular computers as low-cost,
Hannah F. R. Hereward https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1917-1550
bespoke camera trap systems for ecological and conservation re-
Sean A. Rands https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7400-005X search -a systematic review. Submitted: September 2021.
Robert J. Thomas https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5256-3313 Johnston, S. J., & Cox, S. J. (2017). The raspberry Pi: A technology dis-
rupter, and the enabler of dreams. Electronics (Switzerland), 6(3), 51.
https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics6030051
REFERENCES
Jolles, J. W. (2021). Broad-scale applications of the Raspberry Pi: A re-
Alarcón-Nieto, G., Graving, J. M., Klarevas-Irby, J. A., Maldonado- view and guide for biologists. Methods in Ecology and Evolution,
Chaparro, A. A., Mueller, I., & Farine, D. R. (2018). An auto- 12(9), 1562–1579. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13652
mated barcode tracking system for behavioural studies in birds. Jolles, J. W., Laskowski, K. L., Boogert, N. J., & Manica, A. (2018).
Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(6), 1536–1547. https://doi. Repeatable group differences in the collective behaviour of
org/10.1111/2041-210X.13005 stickleback shoals across ecological contexts. Proceedings of the
Allan, B. M., Nimmo, D. G., Ierodiaconou, D., VanDerWal, J., Koh, L. P., & Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 285, 20172629. https://doi.
Ritchie, E. G. (2018). Futurecasting ecological research: The rise of org/10.1098/rspb.2017.2629
technoecology. Ecosphere, 9(5), e02163. https://doi.org/10.1002/ Kalhor, D., Pusenkova, A., Poirier, M., Gauthier, G., Galstian, T., &
ecs2.2163 Maldague, X. (2019). Using near infrared for studying lemming sub-
Bolton, M., Medeiros, R., Hothersall, B., & Campos, A. (2004). The use of nival behavior in the High Arctic. In Proceedings of the 15th inter-
artificial breeding chambers as a conservation measure for cavity- national workshop on advanced infrared technology and applications
nesting procellariiform seabirds: A case study of the Madeiran (Vol. 27, pp. 11). MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2019
storm petrel (Oceanodroma castro). Biological Conservation, 116(1), 027011
73–8 0. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00178-2 Kallmyer, N. E., Shin, H. J., Brem, E. A., Israelsen, W. J., & Reuel, N. F.
Bolton, M., Smith, A. L., Gómez-díaz, E., Friesen, V. L., Medeiros, R., Bried, (2019). Nesting box imager: Contact-free, real-time measurement
J., Roscales, J. L., & Furness, R. W. (2008). Monteiro's Storm-petrel of activity, surface body temperature, and respiratory rate ap-
Oceanodroma monteiroi: A new species from the Azores. Ibis, 150(4), plied to hibernating mouse models. PLoS Biology, 17(7), e3000406.
717–727. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2008.00854.x https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000406
Bried, J., Magalhaes, M. C., Bolton, M., Neves, V. C., Bell, E., Pereira, Long, S. E., Devlin, J. J., Raposo, P., Porter, B. J., & Hereward, H. F. R.
J. C., Aguiar, L., Monteiro, L. R., & Santos, R. S. (2009). Seabird (in press). Habitat categorisation and mapping of a seabird reserve:
habitat restoration on Praia Islet, Azores Archipelago. Ecological Ilhéu da Praia, Azores. Seabird.
Restoration, 27(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.3368/er.27.1.27 McBride, W. J., & Courter, J. R. (2019). Using Raspberry Pi microcom-
Camacho, L., Baquerizo, R., Palomino, J., & Zarzosa, M. (2017). puters to remotely monitor birds and collect environmental data.
Deployment of a set of camera trap networks for wildlife inventory Ecological Informatics, 54, 101016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
in western amazon rainforest. IEEE Sensors Journal, 17(23), 8000– ecoinf.2019.101016
8007. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2017.2760254 Meek, P. D., Ballard, G., Claridge, A., Kays, R., Moseby, K., O'Brien, T.,
Caravaggi, A., Burton, A. C., Clark, D. A., Fisher, J. T., Grass, A., Green, S., O’Connell, A., Sanderson, J., Swann, D. E., Tobler, M., & Townsend,
Hobaiter, C., Hofmeester, T. R., Kalan, A. K., Rabaiotti, D., & Rivet, S. (2014). Recommended guiding principles for reporting on camera
D. (2020). A review of factors to consider when using camera traps trapping research. Biodiversity and Conservation, 23(9), 2321–2343.
to study animal behavior to inform wildlife ecology and conser- https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0712-8
vation. Conservation Science and Practice, 2(8), e239. https://doi. Meek, P. D., & Pittet, A. (2012). User-based design specifications for the
org/10.1111/csp2.239 ultimate camera trap for wildlife research. Wildlife Research, 39(8),
Cox, W. A., Pruett, M. S., Benson, T. J., Chiavacci, S. J., & Thompson, F. 649–660. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR12138
R. III (2012). 15. Development of camera technology for monitor- Monteiro, L. R., & Furness, R. W. (1998). Speciation through temporal
ing nests. In C. A. Ribic, F. R. Thompson, & P. J. Pietz (Eds.), Video segregation of Madeiran storm petrel (Oceanodroma castro) popu-
surveillance of nesting birds. Studies in avian biology (pp. 185–198). lations in the Azores? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
B: Biological Sciences, 353, 945–953. https://doi.org/10.1098/ animals. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 54(1), 53–59. https://
rstb.1998.0259 doi.org/10.1007/s10344-0 07-0108-0
Mouy, X., Black, M., Cox, K., Qualley, J., Mireault, C., Dosso, S., & Juanes, Swann, D. E., Hass, C. C., Dalton, D. C., & Wolf, S. A. (2004). Infrared-
F. (2020). FishCam: A low-cost open source autonomous camera for triggered cameras for detecting wildlife: An evaluation and
aquatic research. HardwareX, 8, e00110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. review. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 32(2), 357–365. https://doi.
ohx.2020.e00110 org/10.2193/0091-7648(2004)32[357:icfdwa]2.0.co;2
Nazir, S., Fairhurst, G., & Verdicchio, F. (2017). WiSE – A satellite-based Trolliet, F., Huynen, M.-C ., Vermeulen, C., & Hambuckers, A. (2014).
system for remote monitoring. International Journal of Satellite Use of camera traps for wildlife studies. A review. Biotechnologie,
Communications and Networking, 35(3), 201–214. https://doi. Agronomie, Société Et Environnement, 18(3), 446–454.
org/10.1002/sat.1176 Youngblood, M. (2020). A Raspberry Pi-based, RFID-equipped bird-
Nazir, S., Newey, S., Irvine, R. J., Verdicchio, F., Davidson, P., Fairhurst, feeder for the remote monitoring of wild bird populations. Ringing
G., & Van Der Wal, R. (2017). WiseEye: Next generation expand- and Migration, 34(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/03078
able and programmable camera trap platform for wildlife re- 698.2019.1759908
search. PLoS One, 12(1), e0169758. https://doi.org/10.1371/journ Zárybnická, M., Kubizňák, P., Šindelář, J., & Hlaváč, V. (2016). Smart nest
al.pone.0169758 box: A tool and methodology for monitoring of cavity-dwelling an-
O'Connell, A. F., Nichols, J. D., & Karanth, K. U. (2011). Camera traps in imals. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(4), 483–492. https://doi.
animal ecology. Springer Japan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4- org/10.1111/2041-210X.12509
431-99495- 4
Phillips, B. T., Licht, S., Haiat, K. S., Bonney, J., Allder, J., Chaloux, N.,
Shomberg, R., & Noyes, T. J. (2019). DEEPi: A miniaturized, robust,
How to cite this article: Hereward, H. F. R., Facey, R. J.,
and economical camera and computer system for deep-sea explo-
ration. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers,
Sargent, A. J., Roda, S., Couldwell, M. L., Renshaw, E. L.,
153, 103136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2019.103136 Shaw, K. H., Devlin, J. J., Long, S. E., Porter, B. J., Henderson,
Prinz, A. C. B., Taank, V. K., Voegeli, V., & Walters, E. L. (2016). A novel J. M., Emmett, C. L., Astbury, L., Maggs, L., Rands, S. A., &
nest-monitoring camera system using a Raspberry Pi micro- Thomas, R. J. (2021). Raspberry Pi nest cameras: An
computer. Journal of Field Ornithology, 87(4), 427–435. https://doi.
affordable tool for remote behavioral and conservation
org/10.1111/jofo.12182
Reif, V., & Tornberg, R. (2006). Using time-lapse digital video re- monitoring of bird nests. Ecology and Evolution, 11, 14585–
cording for a nesting study of birds of prey. European Journal of 14597. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8127
Wildlife Research, 52(4), 251–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1034
4-0 06-0 039-1
Scheibe, K. M., Eichhorn, K., Wiesmayr, M., Schonert, B., & Krone, O.
(2008). Long-term automatic video recording as a tool for analys-
ing the time patterns of utilisation of predefined locations by wild
APPENDIX A deployments, we recommend a small bespoke screen; the Elecrow

5 Inch Touch Screen HDMI Monitor Small HD 800×480 TFT LCD
Detailed part list, program scripts, and extended build instructions Display for Raspberry Pi), an HDMI cable with mini-HDMI adapter,
either two micro-USB cable chargers (for mains power), or two
PA R T L I S T micro-USB cables with USB-compatible rechargeable powerpacks (if
mains power is not available). Where possible, we recommend set-
Single-buy kit for setup ting up cameras using mains power prior to deployment in a remote
Setting up the camera requires the following single-purchase kit: location, to minimize battery usage in the field. This equipment costs
a Pimoroni Three Port USB Hub with Ethernet—microB connector, ~£100 GBP (~$133 USD) to allow the construction of multiple cam-
a USB keyboard, a USB mouse, a computer screen (for fieldwork eras prior to deployment.
TA B L E A 1 Cost breakdown by component, for the single-purchase kit requirements, camera, and housing used in this study (costing as
of July 2020)
Single-purchase Per Per

Equipment Quantity kit camera housing
Elecrow 5 Inch Touch Screen for Raspberry Pi 1 £32.99

HDMI cord 1 £3.50
Mini HDMI converter 1 £2.96
Micro-USB cable + charger (e.g., Raspberry Pi 3 Power adapter UK/ 2 £16.99
EU 5V 2.5A OR using micro-USB -USB cable + powerpack already
acquired to run the boards)
Wired USB keyboard + USB mouse 1 £28.98
Pimoroni Three Port USB Hub with Ethernet -microB connector 1 £9.90
Spare Lock & Lock 800ml Food Container Rectangle Container Lunch 1 £4.00
Box HPL816
Silica gel (20g packet) 5 £10.00
Total for single kit requirements £109.32
Raspberry Pi Zero WH (presoldered) board 1 £13.02
Real Time Clock (RTC) 1 £9.99
PIR sensor (connected using Female-Female jump leads) 1 £3.50
160° fish eye lens with infrared attachments (+zero lead) 1 £20.00
NOOBS SD card (with micro SD card) 1 £9.00
Mini USB to USB 3.0 USB 1 £11.99
Off switch/clicker 1 £0.03
Poweradd Pilot X7 20,000 mAh portable powerpack 1 £15.99
Mini USB 3.0 USB connector cable 1 £2.30
Heat sink 1 £0.50
Female-female jump leads × 3 (for motion sensor), ×2 (for switch) 5 £0.38
(0.075p per lead)
Total for camera £86.70
Lock & Lock HPL805 Stackable Airtight Container Rectangular 180 ml 1 £3.50
Lock & Lock 800 ml Food Container Rectangle Container Lunch Box 1 £4.00
HPL816
Cork board -25 cm diameter round, 1 cm thick 1 £7.00
Cork board -22 cm diameter round, 0.6 cm thick 1 £2.00
Garden wire diameter ~1.2 mm (small amount needed from large reel) 1 £6.00
Silica gel (1 g packet) 1 £0.08
Total for housing £22.58
Total for the camera + housing £109.27
Overall total £218.59
Note: Prices given in GBP £.

TA B L E A 2 Description of the Success, Partial failure, or Failure of each in-nest camera deployment
Type of deployment success/failure Description
Failure Where only 0–2 videos recorded

Partial failure (nonusable) When more than two videos were recorded but in total less than 1 hr was recorded
Partial failure (usable) When there was an unexpected interruption in the footage but there was more than 1 hr of footage
recorded (e.g., caused by loss of battery power, technical faults, or a break in footage despite
movement still occurring in the nest due to an adult or chick being present)
Success Continuous footage with no known interruptions (allowing for anticipated breaks between footage
when no movement was detected)
TA B L E A 3 Number of deployments, number of 30-s videos created per deployment, sum, maximum, mean, and standard error of the
hours of footage recorded
Hours of footage recorded

No. of
Deployment outcome deployments No. of videos Sum Max Mean SE
Monteiro's Failure 6 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

storm-petrel Partial (nonuseable) 1 6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
Partial (useable) 17 14,086 117.4 22.0 6.9 1.4
Success 56 52,118 434.3 14.9 7.8 0.5
Subtotal 80 66,213 551.8 37.0 14.7
Madeiran Failure 11 10 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
storm-petrel Partial (nonuseable) 3 43 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0
Partial (useable) 3 509 10.7 6.5 3.6 1.5
Success 41 42,408 353.4 17.5 8.6 0.5
Subtotal 58 42,970 364.5 24.2 12.3
Total 138 109,183 916.3 22.0 6.6 0.4
Note: Categorized into if the deployment was a Failure, Partial failure (nonusable), Partial failure (usable), or Success both species: Monteiro's storm-
petrel Hydrobates monteiroi and Madeiran storm-petrel Hydrobates castro, from their respective breeding seasons (summer 2019 and winter 2019–
2020, respectively) on Praia islet, Graciosa, Azores.
TA B L E A 4 Number of Successful
Duration of footage
and Partial failures (usable) deployments
categorized by the duration of the footage Storm-petrel 1–
obtained based on start and end times Deployment outcome species 12 hr 12–24 hr 24+ hr Total
of the footage (1–12 hr, 12–24 hr, 24+
Successful Monteiro's 7 30 19 56
hr) for both species: Monteiro's storm-
petrel Hydrobates monteiroi and Madeiran Madeiran 0 37 4 41
storm-petrel Hydrobates castro from their Subtotal 7 67 23 97
respective breeding seasons (summer
Partial (useable) Monteiro's 7 2 8 17
2019 and winter 2019–2020, respectively)
on Praia islet, Graciosa, Azores Madeiran 1 0 2 3
Subtotal 8 2 10 20
Total 15 69 33 117
List of parts required to build each camera end of the USB and a USB-3.0 connector on the other end. This is
The following parts are required to build each camera. Each camera where the recorded video files were stored. In this study, we used
cost a total of ~£86 GBP (~$115 USD) to build. Each numbered part a USB to store video files and found this to be highly successful
is referred to within the build instructions below: and aided in smooth transfers of files from cameras after each
deployment. This reduced the SD space limitations mentioned
• Part 1: Dual USB flash drive, Mini USB to USB-3.0. We used a in previous papers (McBride & Courter, 2019; Mouy et al., 2020;
SANDISK Ultra (64 GB), which has a mini-USB connector on one Prinz et al., 2016; Youngblood, 2020) and, for our deployments,
allowed storage of the 3–5 GB of video files created per 24-to 48- female–female cables, the black covers were removed for easier
hr deployment. However, for those setting up cameras in extreme attachment of the switch (Figure 1e–g).
conditions, the preliminary trials from Mouy et al. (2020) using a • Part 8: Heat sink. One heat sink was added to each Raspberry Pi
USB are important to take into account, as they found the USB- Zero board, to reduce the risk of overheating.
USB port connection to be fragile and consequently disrupted • Part 9: Mini-USB-3.0 USB connector cable + powerpack. To power
by vibrations during transport by boat prior to deployment. We the Pi Zero board, a 1-m-long mini-USB-3.0 connector cable was
suggest labeling each USB flash drive to ensure that each USB connected to a Poweradd Pilot X7 20,000 mAh portable power-
drive stays with the same Pi Zero board and to avoid confusion if pack (these powerpacks typically powered the camera setup for
multiple cameras are being set up and deployed. 24–48 hr).
• Part 2: Micro-SD card. This SD card acts as the Raspberry Pi com-
puter's hard drive and holds a copy of the Python command Equipment housing
scripts. A 16 GB micro-SD card provided sufficient storage space For our study system, the design of the equipment housing was an
(we specifically used a NOOBS 16 GB microSD card (version 2.8) important consideration, given the high relative humidity and salt
as the Raspberry Pi Operating System is pre-installed). For future spray, and the pre-existing artificial nest box dimensions. As a result,
users working in remote locations, we would recommend set- we used two sizes of plastic container to house the equipment: a
ting up the cameras and cloning the SD cards before the start of smaller one for the camera (Lock & Lock HPL805 Stackable Airtight
fieldwork. This consequently reduces setup time in the field and Container Rectangular 180 ml, Plastic, Clear, 11 × 8.9 × 4.9 cm) and
is especially useful when there is limited or unreliable access to a larger one for the powerpack (Lock & Lock 800 ml Food Container
electrical power. Rectangular Lunch Box HPL816, 13.7 × 5.3 × 20.8 cm). Holes to ac-
• Part 3: Raspberry Pi Zero WH (presoldered) board. The small size of commodate the camera wiring were drilled into appropriate places.
this circuit board allows the camera to be as compact as possi- Blue tac (Bostik) and glue (such as PVC pipe adhesive) were used
ble to fit within the nest box. This circuit board does not require to seal the gaps in the drilled holes where necessary, reducing the
soldering (a version without the GPIO header pins attached is likelihood of water entry, and at least one 1-g silica gel sachet was
cheaper, but requires soldering). In the Python script, the GPIO also placed inside each of the sealed boxes to help reduce humidity
pins were set to “GPIO layout” (see “nestcam.py”). around the equipment.
• Part 4: Fisheye camera + infrared LED attachments. In order to cap-
ture the widest possible field of view, and to allow for day and Camera mounts
night footage of nests to be recorded, we used a night vision cam- To mount the cameras on top of the nest rim, but underneath the
era module for Raspberry Pi, incorporating a 160° fisheye lens lid, we cut a hole from the center of a round cork board (25 cm di-
with a standard focus distance of ~15 cm, combined with infrared ameter, 1 cm thick) into which the waterproof camera box base slot-
LED attachments (shop.pimoroni.com). ted. We then attached (using thin garden wire) an additional thinner
• Part 5: Real Time Clock. To provide an accurate date and time stamp cork board square (cut from a 22-cm-diameter, 0.6-cm-thick cork
on video recordings, we used a DS1307 RTC Real Time Clock board) with camera, IR LED and PIR sensor holes to support these
Module Board with additional GPIO pins, powered separately (Figure 2a–d). The equipment housing and camera mounts cost an
with a LiCB CR1220 3V Lithium Battery Button Cell Battery. additional ~£23 GBP (~$31 USD) per camera.
Occasionally, we found video files returned with the wrong date
and/or time. This was likely due to an insecure connection to the Program scripts and associated files
Real Time Clock, or because the separate button battery was run- Five python files can be found in the archived data repository
ning low, causing the Real Time Clock date and time to reset itself. (Hereward et al., 2022). Two are python scripts that were used to run
This is easily fixed between deployments, by replacing the button the camera and shutdown option (“nestcam.py” and “shutdown.py”).
battery (or the whole component), and then repeating the Real The other three files are details of the command lines to be used in
Time Clock setup as described below. For buffering against such the Raspberry Pi “terminal,” which assist in the camera setup de-
technical failures, we recommend taking several sets of spare scribed below (“script for RaspPi terminal_RTC.py,”“script for RaspPi
components into the field to allow for smooth and quick fixes if terminal_runonboot.py,” “script for RaspPi terminal_usb.py”).
changes are needed.
• Part 6: Passive Infrared (PIR) sensor + 3 female–female cables. To Step-by-step instructions for building the camera
enable the camera to record after detection of motion, a pre- Using the parts described above, and each of the scripts provided,
assembled PIR sensor was used (Figure 2a–d). This method as- we suggest setting up the camera in this order:
sumed that a change in infrared detection would indicate that
motion of an animal had occurred within the field of view. 1. Before beginning to build the camera, plug the uniquely labeled
• Part 7: Off clicker + 2 female–female cables. To allow for correct USB (Part 1) into a computer and copy the five python files
shutting down of the Pi Zero board in the field, a “shutdown” (see archived data repository) onto the USB. Note that in
script was written (see “shutdown.py”). On the switch end of the any future connections of the USB to the computer it will
suggest “fixing a bug problem”—do not select this option as sensor “VCC” pin is connected to the Real Time
it will reformat the USB. Clock “5V” pin and then the two “GND” pins are
2. Install onto the microSD card (Part 2) the Raspberry Pi Operating connected together. Finally, “OUT” on the PIR
System, which is downloadable (with installation instructions) sensor is connected to GPIO17 (pin 11) on the Pi
from: www.raspberrypi.org/downloads/raspbian/ (if you have Zero board (Figure 1a–d). The sensor settings (time
bought a NOOBS microSD then the system is pre-installed so and sensitivity) are then altered using the settings;
you can skip this step). Time = min, sensitivity = 90° to min (Figure 1a).
3. Insert the microSD card (Part 2) into the Pi Zero board (Part 3) e. The “Off” switch (Part 7) is added to pins 39 (GND)
and connect the Pimoroni Three Port USB Hub to the Pi Zero & 40 (GPIO 21) (i.e., the end GPIO pins) using two
“USB” port. Connected to this three-port hub should be the USB female–female cables (Figure 1e–g).
(Part 1), keyboard and mouse. Then connect the screen using the f. Add the Heat sink (Part 8); remove the peel-off-
HDMI cable with mini-HDMI adapter. sticker and place onto the chip on the Raspberry Pi
4. Once the above items have been connected, only then connect board (Part 3).
the power source for the screen and Pi Zero board, using USB g. Then reconnect the power via the USB connector
cables to mains power or USB cables to powerpacks. cable.
5. Configure the SD card by following these dropdown menus: 10. Next, configure the Real Time Clock to run on the correct time
pi → Preferences → Rasp.pi configuration – interfaces – en- and date. To do this, follow the step-by-step guide in the “script
able…. Enable: “camera,” “SSH,” and “I2C.” for RaspPi terminal_RTC.py.”
6. In the folder window, find the Pi folder (home → Pi) and cre- 11. Before configuring the terminal so that the scripts run
ate two folders, “scripts” and “usb” (this creates folders on the on boot (i.e., run automatically when power is con-
microSD card—note the use of all lowercase letters in folder nected), it is useful to check that the camera script
names). is working. Open Pi → Programming → Python 3
7. From the USB, copy over the scripts into the new “scripts” folder. (IDLE) → file → open → scripts → “nestcam.py” and press F5
8. At this point, the USB is recognized in the folder: to run the script. Pressing “shift and F6” stops the script run-
home → media → USB, but the next step is to “mount” the USB ning. You will notice that the “nestcam.py” is scripted to print
so that the USB is always given the same name/location and so the word “idle” when the camera is off and “recording” when the
that the data can be written to this location (each USB has a camera is recording. This is displayed on the python shell output
unique code hence the importance of labeling each USB so it re- screen, and aids in testing the camera before deployment.
mains with the same Pi Zero board after “mounting” it). Here, we 12. Once you have checked that the camera is working correctly,
set the new USB folder in: home → Pi → usb - this is the folder add the “nestcam.py” and “shutdown.py” scripts to the “bootup”
where the USB will then always open. To do this, follow the step- so that they will run when it is connected to power; see the step-
by-step guide in the "script for RaspPi terminal_usb.py." by-step guide in the “script for RaspPi terminal_runonboot.py.”
9. Once these steps are completed, the rest of the camera can be 13. When all of the components are assembled (Figure 1h) and con-
built up on the Raspberry Pi board following these steps: figured, the camera is ready to deploy in the field. Disconnect
a. Turn off the board (Pi → shutdown). the HDMI cable + mini-HDMI adapter, Pimoroni Three Port USB
b. Add the camera (Part 4) to the Camera Serial Hub (with keyboard and mouse) and connect the USB (Part 1)
Interface port on the Raspberry Pi board. directly to the “USB” port on the Raspberry Pi board (Part 3).
c. The Real Time Clock (RTC; Part 5) is then placed 14. Prior to deployment the camera needs to be fitted into the
on the GPIO pins 1–10 (GPIO pins are numbered weatherproof housing as described above.
starting from pin 1 at the SD card end). 15. Finally, when ready to turn the camera on, connect a Mini USB
d. The pre-assembled PIR sensor (Part 6) is then 3.0 USB connector cable (Part 9) to the “power in” port on the
added to the additional pins on the Real Time Raspberry Pi board (Part 3) and the powerpack (Part 9).
Clock using three female-female cables. The PIR

Ecology and Evolution - 2021 - Hereward - Raspberry Pi nest cameras An affordable tool for remote behavioral and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ecology and Evolution - 2021 - Hereward - Raspberry Pi nest cameras An affordable tool for remote behavioral and

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ecology and Evolution - 2021 - Hereward - Raspberry Pi nest cameras An affordable tool for remote behavioral and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 18 May 2021 | Revised: 13 August 2021 | Accepted: 1 September 2021

Raspberry Pi nest cameras: An affordable tool for remote

Hannah F. R. Hereward1 | Richard J. Facey1 | Alyssa J. Sargent1,2 | Sara Roda1,3 |

Ecology and Evolution. 2021;11:14585–14597. www.ecolevol.org | 14585

Animal behavior, bespoke camera, burrow-nesting, interspecific interactions, nest box,

F I G U R E 2 Photographs of the camera

two cameras were deployed in different nests. Each camera 3 | R E S U LT S

Broad causes of Failure/Partial

4 | D I S CU S S I O N (Prinz et al., 2016; Zárybnická et al., 2016). The poweradd Pilot X7

APPENDIX A deployments, we recommend a small bespoke screen; the Elecrow

Single-purchase Per Per

Elecrow 5 Inch Touch Screen for Raspberry Pi 1 £32.99

Note: Prices given in GBP £.

Type of deployment success/failure Description

Failure Where only 0–2 videos recorded

Hours of footage recorded

Monteiro's Failure 6 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

You might also like

Ecology and Evolution - 2021 - Hereward - Raspberry Pi nest cameras An affordable tool for remote behavioral and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ecology and Evolution - 2021 - Hereward - Raspberry Pi nest cameras An affordable tool for remote behavioral and

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ecology and Evolution - 2021 - Hereward - Raspberry Pi nest cameras An affordable tool for remote behavioral and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 18 May 2021 | Revised: 13 August 2021 | Accepted: 1 September 2021

Raspberry Pi nest cameras: An affordable tool for remote

Hannah F. R. Hereward1 | Richard J. Facey1 | Alyssa J. Sargent1,2 | Sara Roda1,3 |

Ecology and Evolution. 2021;11:14585–14597. ﻿ www.ecolevol.org | 14585

Animal behavior, bespoke camera, burrow-­nesting, interspecific interactions, nest box,

F I G U R E 2 Photographs of the camera

two cameras were deployed in different nests. Each camera 3 | R E S U LT S

Broad causes of Failure/Partial

4 | D I S CU S S I O N (Prinz et al., 2016; Zárybnická et al., 2016). The poweradd Pilot X7

APPENDIX A deployments, we recommend a small bespoke screen; the Elecrow

Single-­purchase Per Per

Elecrow 5 Inch Touch Screen for Raspberry Pi 1 £32.99

Note: Prices given in GBP £.

Type of deployment success/failure Description

Failure Where only 0–­2 videos recorded

Hours of footage recorded

Monteiro's Failure 6 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

You might also like

Ecology and Evolution. 2021;11:14585–14597. www.ecolevol.org | 14585

Animal behavior, bespoke camera, burrow-nesting, interspecific interactions, nest box,

Single-purchase Per Per

Failure Where only 0–2 videos recorded