ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2020
Baiting/Luring Improves Detection Probability and Species Identification-A Case Study of Mustelids with Camera Traps.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- White-Tailed Deer Baiting Altered Black Bear Site Use but Not Movements or Range Size.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- SiMPL Wildlife Magnets: A Camera Trap Tool for Detecting All Creatures Great and Small.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Fox on the Run-Cheaper Camera Traps Fail to Detect Fast-Moving Mesopredators: Assessing the Differences in Mesopredator Detection Efficacy Among Different Camera Trap Models.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Spatial-Temporal Patterns of Sympatric Asiatic Black Bears (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Domain-Aware Neural Architecture Search for Classifying Animals in Camera Trap Images.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Body Odours as Lures for StoatsAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Motion-triggered trail cameras (hereafter camera traps) are powerful tools which are increasingly used in biological research, especially for species inventories or the estimation of species activity. However, camera traps do not always reliably detect animal visits, as a target species might be too fast, too small, or too far away to trigger an image. Therefore, researchers often apply attractants, such as food or glandular scents, to increase the likelihood of capturing animals. Moreover, with attractants, individuals might remain in front of a camera trap for longer periods leading to a higher number of images and enhanced image quality, which in turn might aid in species identification. The current study compared how two commonly used attractants, bait (tuna) and glandular scent (mustelid mix), affected the detection and the number of images taken by camera traps compared to control camera sites with conventional camera traps. We used a before-after control group design, including a baseline. Attractants increased the probability of detecting the target species and number of images. Tuna experiments produced on average 7.25 times as many images per visit than control camera traps, and scent lures produced on average 18.7 times as many images per visit than the control traps.
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.