SPECIAL SECTION : CAMERA TRAPPING IN AFRICA Common mammal species inventory utilizing camera trapping in the forests of Kouilou Département, Republic of Congo Ben Orban 1 | Gérard Kabafouako 1 | Robert Morley 1 | Caroline Vasicek Gaugris 1,2 | Haemish Melville 3 | Jerome Gaugris 1,2 1 Flora, Fauna & Man Ecological Services, Tortola, Virgin Islands (British) 2 Centre for African Ecology, School of Animal, Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa 3 Department of Environmental Sciences, UNISA (University of South Africa), Pretoria, South Africa Correspondence Jerome Gaugris, Flora, Fauna & Man Ecological Services, Tortola, Virgin Islands (British). Email: jeromegaugris@florafaunaman.com 1 | INTRODUCTION The Republic of Congo's “Kouilou Département” is a little‐known yet biologically rich component of the Congo‐Basin forest system (de Wasseige, Flynn, Louppe, Hiol Hiol, & Mayaux, 2014). Fauna and flora have been depleted through hunting and firewood/charcoal production to supply Pointe‐Noire (70–90 km distant) since 1990. The Kouilou was identified for significant development (forestry, mining, infrastructure projects), and a baseline investigation was required to establish a preproject reference state (Gullison, Hardner, Anstee, & Meyer, 2015). Surveying forest mammals diversity is complex (Ancrenaz, Hearn, Ross, Sollmann, & Wilting, 2012) but vital to establish human impact on biodiversity (Tobler, Carrillo‐Percastegui, Leite Pitman, Mares, & Powell, 2008). Remote camera trapping surveys can support elusive species detection and monitoring (Kelly, 2008) and are effective for forest mammals’ inventories (Walters, 2010). The objective of the study was “exploratory” to improve under- standing of mammalian presence (Meek et al., 2014) and an attempt to observe rare/threatened species (through chance events). We used camera trapping to investigate common, small‐to‐large‐sized mammals (Mugerwa, Sheil, Ssekiranda, Heist, & Ezuma, 2013) thought to occur in the study area (89 species possible—Hecketsweiler & Mokoko‐ Ikonga, 1991), excluding micromammals. In the present paper, we pro- vide a first‐time camera trap‐based overview of mammal species encountered during a preproject baseline investigation for the area. 2 | METHODS The study area covered 205,000 ha in the Republic of the Congo's Kouilou Département, (Figure 1). The study area is transitional between Western Congolian forest‐savannah mosaics and Atlantic Equatorial coastal forests (Devers & Vande Weghe, 2006). Plant diversity is high, owing to a mosaic of hardwood forest, secondary forest, grasslands and savannah (Van Rooyen et al., 2016). Twenty‐five sites (Figure 1) were monitored over 72 days between May (wet‐season end) and July 2012 (dry‐season) by mov- ing cameras regularly. Time available and cameras number were con- strained by budget. Not all cameras were deployed at all times due to logistical limitations. Ten passive infrared cameras (Bushnell Tro- phycam®, 1 s trigger speed) were used, set to trigger three images per trigger‐event at 5 megapixels resolution. A 30‐s interval was pro- grammed between consecutive trigger‐events. Deployed cameras were active continuously at high sensor sensitivity. We used a rec- ommended minimal exploratory logistical set‐up (Rovero, Zimmer- mann, Berzi, & Meek, 2013) for defining species presence: 8–12 cameras, >2 months deployment, >480 trap nights (TN). Site placement was prioritized on sites selected for project devel- opment. Cameras were placed on existing game trails so the cam- era's sensor field of vision (52° angle) was bisected along pathways centreline. Understory growth was selectively cleared (without modi- fying natural habitat) to minimize false triggering. Sites selected rep- resented natural “funnels” forcing animals to pass in front of cameras (Kays et al., 2011) mounted 40–60 cm above ground on tree trunks and positioned to ensure activation for a broad spectrum of animals without lures (Guil, 2010). Animals that could not be individually distinguished (species without individually identifiable morphological characteristics) and captured within 30 min of each other at the same station were con- sidered the same individual and recorded as a single detection event. After 30 min, they were considered as a new photographic event, this being an arbitrary but typical event determination range for independence interval (Meek et al., 2014). Animals were identified to species level (Sawnson, Kosmala, Lin- tott, & Packer, 2016) and assigned relevant IUCN Red List status Received: 14 January 2018 | Revised: 23 June 2018 | Accepted: 12 August 2018 DOI: 10.1111/aje.12551 750 | © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/aje Afr J Ecol. 2018;56:750–754.