ArticleEcology and evolution2023
Estimating effective survey duration in camera trap distance sampling surveys.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utilization Patterns and Optimization Suggestions for Wildlife Passages in Xinjiang Nature Reserves.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Shooting area of infrared camera traps affects recorded taxonomic richness and abundance of ground-dwelling invertebrates.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Estimating effective survey duration in camera trap distance sampling surveys.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
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
Among other approaches, camera trap distance sampling (CTDS) is used to estimate animal abundance from unmarked populations. It was formulated for videos and observation distances are measured at predetermined 'snapshot moments'. Surveys recording still images with passive infrared motion sensors suffer from frequent periods where animals are not photographed, either because of technical delays before the camera can be triggered again (i.e. 'camera recovery time') or because they remain stationary and do not immediately retrigger the camera following camera recovery time (i.e. 'retrigger delays'). These effects need to be considered when calculating temporal survey effort to avoid downwardly biased abundance estimates. Here, we extend the CTDS model for passive infrared motion sensor recording of single images or short photo series. We propose estimating 'mean time intervals between triggers' as combined mean camera recovery time and mean retrigger delays from the time interval distribution of pairs of consecutive pictures, using a Gamma and Exponential function, respectively. We apply the approach to survey data on red deer, roe deer and wild boar. Mean time intervals between triggers were very similar when estimated empirically and when derived from the model-based approach. Depending on truncation times (i.e. the time interval between consecutive pictures beyond which data are discarded) and species, we estimated mean time intervals between retriggers between 8.28 and 15.05 s. Using a predefined snapshot interval, not accounting for these intervals, would lead to underestimated density by up to 96% due to overestimated temporal survey effort. The proposed approach is applicable to any taxa surveyed with camera traps. As programming of cameras to record still images is often preferred over video recording due to reduced consumption of energy and memory, we expect this approach to find broad application, also for other camera trap methods than CTDS.
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.