ArticleMovement ecology2021
Empirical evaluation of the spatial scale and detection process of camera trap surveys.
Article in Movement ecology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Structured Habitat Attribute Extraction from Camera-Trap Images Using a Vision-Language Model: A Proof-of-Concept Study in a Karst Forest.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Eucalyptus Plantation Management Shapes Roe Deer Site-Use Patterns.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Short-distance detectability in camera trap surveys: implications for population assessment.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2026Article
- Continuous Audio-Visual Sensor Monitoring Is More Effective Than Human Observers for Detecting Moor Macaques.American journal of primatology · 2026Article
- Non-Volant Mammalian Diversity, Occurrence, and Ecological Patterns in a Tropical Montane Forest in Sarawak, Borneo.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Shifting mammal communities and declining species richness along an elevational gradient on Mount Kenya.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Land cover preferences and spatiotemporal associations of ungulates within a Scottish mammal community.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- A simple framework for maximizing camera trap detections using experimental trials.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2023Article
- Human impacts on mammals in and around a protected area before, during, and after COVID-19 lockdowns.Conservation science and practice · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCamera traps present a valuable tool for monitoring animals but detect species imperfectly. Occupancy models are frequently used to address this, but it is unclear what spatial scale the data represent. Although individual cameras monitor animal activity within a small target window in front of the device, many practitioners use these data to infer animal presence over larger, vaguely-defined areas. Animal movement is generally presumed to link these scales, but fine-scale heterogeneity in animal space use could disrupt this relationship.
methodsWe deployed cameras at 10 m intervals across a 0.6 ha forest plot to create an unprecedentedly dense sensor array that allows us to compare animal detections at these two scales. Using time-stamped camera detections we reconstructed fine-scale movement paths of four mammal species and characterized (a) how well animal use of a single camera represented use of the surrounding plot, (b) how well cameras detected animals, and (c) how these processes affected overall detection probability, p. We used these observations to parameterize simulations that test the performance of occupancy models in realistic scenarios.
resultsWe document two important aspects of animal movement and how it affects sampling with passive detectors. First, animal space use is heterogeneous at the camera-trap scale, and data from a single camera may poorly represent activity in its surroundings. Second, cameras frequently (14-71%) fail to record passing animals. Our simulations show how this heterogeneity can introduce unmodeled variation into detection probability, biasing occupancy estimates for species with low p.
conclusionsOccupancy or population estimates with camera traps could be improved by increasing camera reliability to reduce missed detections, adding covariates to model heterogeneity in p, or increasing the area sampled by each camera through different sampling designs or technologies.
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.