ArticleRoyal Society open science2019
Snap happy: camera traps are an effective sampling tool when compared with alternative methods.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
49 citing papers in PubMed.
- Monitoring wildlife health for diseases with visible signs by integrating camera traps with marked individuals.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
- A Comparison between Passive airDNA Collection and Extraction Methods on the Recovered Terrestrial Vertebrate Assemblage.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Catwalk: Leopards Persist at Moderate Densities While Exhibiting Temporal Segregation From Humans in Telangana's Boath Range.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Behavioral Variability of Endangered Northern Pig-Tailed Macaques in a Degraded Mosaic Habitat in Northeast Bangladesh.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Integrating Line Transect Distance Sampling and Spatial Analysis to Assess Local Density and Habitat Use ofLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Motion detection or time-lapse? A comparison of camera trap triggers for monitoring breeding taiga bean geese (Anser fabalis fabalis).PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
- Developing custom computer vision models with Njobvu-AI: A collaborative, user-friendly platform for ecological research.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025Article
- Tiny Patch, Big Value: A Small Dry Forest Patch Supports Wildlife Conservation in Guanacaste, Costa Rica.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Placement matters: Implications of trail- versus random-based camera-trap deployment for monitoring mammal communities.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025Article
- Robotic monitoring of European habitats: a labeled dataset for plant detection in Annex I habitats of Italy.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Large-scale and long-term wildlife research and monitoring using camera traps: a continental synthesis.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025Review
- Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Wildlife in Huangshan Scenic Area, Anhui Province, China.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Article
- Towards Context-Rich Automated Biodiversity Assessments: Deriving AI-Powered Insights from Camera Trap Data.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparing Methods of Detecting an Elusive Dasyurid Marsupial, the Threatened Julia Creek Dunnart (Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- The Activity Patterns and Grouping Characteristics of the Remaining Goitered Gazelle (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Article
- Automated Detection and Counting of Wild Boar in Camera Trap Images.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Camera traps have become a ubiquitous tool in ecology and conservation. They are routinely deployed in wildlife survey and monitoring work, and are being advocated as a tool for planetary-scale biodiversity monitoring. The camera trap's widespread adoption is predicated on the assumption of its effectiveness, but the evidence base for this is lacking. Using 104 past studies, we recorded the qualitative overall recommendations made by study authors (for or against camera traps, or ambiguous), together with quantitative data on the effectiveness of camera traps (e.g. number of species detected or detection probabilities) relative to 22 other methods. Most studies recommended the use of camera traps overall and they were 39% more effective based on the quantitative data. They were significantly more effective compared with live traps (88%) and were otherwise comparable in effectiveness to other methods. Camera traps were significantly more effective than other methods at detecting a large number of species (31% more) and for generating detections of species (91% more). This makes camera traps particularly suitable for broad-spectrum biodiversity surveys. Film camera traps were found to be far less effective than digital models, which has led to an increase in camera trap effectiveness over time. There was also evidence from the authors that the use of attractants with camera traps reduced their effectiveness (counter to their intended effect), while the quantitative data indicated that camera traps were more effective in closed than open habitats. Camera traps are a highly effective wildlife survey tool and their performance will only improve with future technological advances. The images they produce also have a range of other benefits, for example as digital voucher specimens and as visual aids for outreach. The evidence-base supports the increasing use of camera traps and underlines their suitability for meeting the challenges of global-scale biodiversity monitoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.