Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29520029›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2018

Estimating wildlife activity curves: comparison of methods and sample size.

Marcus A Lashley, Michael V Cove, M Colter Chitwood, Gabriel Penido, Beth Gardner, Chris S DePerno, Chris E Moorman

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed
13.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 175 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Marcus A LashleyWildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture, Mississippi State University, Box 9690, Mississippi State, MS, 39762, USA. marcus.lashley@msstate.edu.
Michael V CoveDepartment of Applied Ecology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27695, USA.
M Colter ChitwoodWildlife Biology Program, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, 59812, USA.
Gabriel PenidoPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia, Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade de Brasília, Darcy Ribeiro, 70910-900, Brazil.
Beth GardnerEnvironmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Chris S DePernoFisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology Program, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27606, USA.
Chris E MoormanFisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology Program, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27606, USA.
North Carolina State University · USMississippi State University · USUniversidade de Brasília · BRUniversity of Montana · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Camera traps and radiotags commonly are used to estimate animal activity curves. However, little empirical evidence has been provided to validate whether they produce similar results. We compared activity curves from two common camera trapping techniques to those from radiotags with four species that varied substantially in size (~1 kg-~50 kg), diet (herbivore, omnivore, carnivore), and mode of activity (diurnal and crepuscular). Also, we sub-sampled photographs of each species with each camera trapping technique to determine the minimum sample size needed to maintain accuracy and precision of estimates. Camera trapping estimated greater activity during feeding times than radiotags in all but the carnivore, likely reflective of the close proximity of foods readily consumed by all species except the carnivore (i.e., corn bait or acorns). However, additional analyses still indicated both camera trapping methods produced relatively high overlap and correlation to radiotags. Regardless of species or camera trapping method, mean overlap increased and overlap error decreased rapidly as sample sizes increased until an asymptote near 100 detections which we therefore recommend as a minimum sample size. Researchers should acknowledge that camera traps and radiotags may estimate the same mode of activity but differ in their estimation of magnitude in activity peaks.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalAnimalsAnimals, WildConservation of Natural ResourcesPopulation DensitySample Size

Identifiers

PMID29520029
PMCPMC5843653
OpenAlexW2792876218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.