ArticlePloS one2023
Using decoys and camera traps to estimate depredation rates and neonate survival.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Technical note: examining the response of a large carnivore (European journal of wildlife research · 2026Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ungulate neonates-individuals less than four weeks old-typically experience the greatest predation rates, and variation in their survival can influence ungulate population dynamics. Typical methods to measure neonate survival involve capture and radio-tracking of adults and neonates to discover mortality events. This type of fieldwork is invasive and expensive, can bias results if it leads to neonate abandonment, and may still have high uncertainty about the predator species involved. Here we explore the potential for a non-invasive approach to estimate an index for neonate survival using camera traps paired with decoys that mimic white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) neonates in the first month of life. We monitored sites with camera traps for two weeks before and after the placement of the neonate decoy and urine scent lure. Predator response to the decoy was classified into three categories: did not approach, approached within 2.5 m but did not touch the decoy, or physically touched the decoy; when conducting survival analyses, we considered these second two categories as dead neonates. The majority (76.3%) of the predators approached the decoy, with 51.1% initiating physical contact. Decoy probability of survival was 0.31 (95% CI = 0.22, 0.35) for a 30-day period. Decoys within the geographic range of American black bear (Ursus americanus) were primarily (75%) attacked by bears. Overall, neonate survival probability decreased as predator abundance increased. The camera-decoy protocol required about ½ the effort and 1/3 the budget of traditional capture-track approaches. We conclude that the camera-decoy approach is a cost-effective method to estimate a neonate survival probability index based on depredation probability and identify which predators are most important.
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.