Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34909218›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2021

Comparing the efficiency of monofilament and regular nets for capturing bats.

Silvia Chaves-Ramírez, Christian Castillo-Salazar, Mariela Sánchez-Chavarría, Hellen Solís-Hernández, Gloriana Chaverri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Assessment of sexual dimorphismbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
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

5 authors.

Silvia Chaves-RamírezEscuela de Biología, Universidad de Costa Rica, San Pedro, Costa Rica.ORCID 0000-0002-0377-2167
Christian Castillo-SalazarEscuela de Biología, Universidad de Costa Rica, San Pedro, Costa Rica.ORCID 0000-0003-0468-983X
Mariela Sánchez-ChavarríaSede del Sur, Universidad de Costa Rica, Golfito, Costa Rica.
Hellen Solís-HernándezSede del Sur, Universidad de Costa Rica, Golfito, Costa Rica.
Gloriana ChaverriSede del Sur, Universidad de Costa Rica, Golfito, Costa Rica.ORCID 0000-0002-1155-432X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regular nylon or polyester mist nets used for capturing bats have several drawbacks, particularly that they are inefficient at sampling insectivorous species. One possible alternative is to use monofilament nets, whose netting is made of single strands of yarn instead of several as regular nets, making them less detectable. To date, only one study has quantified the differences in capture rates between monofilament and regular mist nets for the study of bats, yet surprisingly, its findings suggest that the latter are more efficient than the former. Here, we provide further evidence of the differences in sampling efficiency between these two nets. We captured 90 individuals and 14 species in regular nets and 125 individuals and 20 species in monofilament nets. The use of monofilament nets increased overall capture rates, particularly for insectivorous species. Species accumulation curves indicate that samples based on regular nets are significantly underestimating species diversity, most notably as these nets fail at sampling rare species. We show that incorporating monofilament nets into bat studies offers an opportunity to expand records of different guilds and rare bat species and to improve our understanding of poorly known bat assemblages while using a popular, relatively cheap and portable sampling method.

Indexed as

batsChiropteraCosta Ricamist nets

Identifiers

PMID34909218
PMCPMC8652279

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.