ArticlePloS one2019
Maximising camera trap data: Using attractants to improve detection of elusive species in multi-species surveys.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 72 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating multiple observation data sources to facilitate movement modelling of killer whale pods.Movement ecology · 2026Article
- Biodiversity conservation depends on the expansion of taxonomy and systematics research.Journal of mammalogy · 2025Article
- SiMPL Wildlife Magnets: A Camera Trap Tool for Detecting All Creatures Great and Small.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Comparing the cost-effectiveness of drones, camera trapping and passive acoustic recorders in detecting changes in koala occupancy.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- An overwinter protocol for detecting wolverines and other carnivores at camera traps paired with automated scent dispensers.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- How do invasive predators and their native prey respond to prescribed fire?Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Small Felids Coexist in Mixed-Use Landscape in the Bolivian Amazon.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Comparing the effectiveness of environmental DNA and camera traps for surveying American mink (Neogale vison) in northeastern Indiana.PloS one · 2024Article
- Laying low: Rugged lowland rainforest preferred by feral cats in the Australian Wet Tropics.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Empirical evaluation of the spatial scale and detection process of camera trap surveys.Movement ecology · 2021Article
- Effects of Bait on Male White-Tailed Deer Resource Selection.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- Linking camera-trap data to taxonomy: Identifying photographs of morphologically similar chipmunks.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- Article
- Competition and specialization in an African forest carnivore community.Ecology and evolution · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Camera traps are a key tool in ecological studies, and are increasingly being used to understand entire communities. However, robust inferences continue to be hampered by low detection of rare and elusive species. Attractants can be used to increase detection rates, but may also alter behaviour, and little research has evaluated short-term, localized response to the presence of attractants. We conducted three camera trap surveys in Kibale National Park, Uganda, using food baits and scent lures ("attractants") at each camera station to entice small carnivores to pass in front of camera stations. To examine the interrelationship between scavenging and response to attractants, we also placed camera traps at five food refuse pits. We modelled the effect of attractant and duration of trap placement on the detection probability of small carnivores and selected African golden cat Caracal aurata prey items. We examine transient site response of each species, by comparing our observed likelihood of detection in each 24 h period from 1-7 d following refreshing of attractants to randomly generated capture histories. African civet Civettictis civetta, rusty-spotted genet Genetta maculata, African palm civet Nandinia binotata, and marsh mongoose Atilax paludinosus detection probabilities were highest and Weyns's red duiker Cephalophus wenysi detection probability was lowest immediately after attractants were placed. Within 24 h after attractant was placed, rusty-spotted genet and African palm civet were more likely to be detected and African golden cat, red duiker, and blue duiker Philantomba monticola were less likely to be detected. Our results suggest that attractants can increase detection of small-bodied species and include some arboreal species in terrestrial camera trap sampling. However, attractants may also alter short-term visitation rates of some species, with potentially cascading effects on others. Community level and intraguild interaction studies should control for the potentially confounding effects of attractants on spatial activity patterns.
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.