ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2023
A simple framework for maximizing camera trap detections using experimental trials.
Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global Camera Trapping Inventory (GCTI) v.1.0: A worldwide inventory of camera-trapping studies for spatial biodiversity analysis.Zoological research · 2026Article
- Short-distance detectability in camera trap surveys: implications for population assessment.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Camera trap data are biased when an animal passes through a camera's field of view but is not recorded. Cameras that operate using passive infrared sensors rely on their ability to detect thermal energy from the surface of an object. Optimal camera deployment consequently depends on the relationship between a sensor array and an animal. Here, we describe a general, experimental approach to evaluate detection errors that arise from the interaction between cameras and animals. We adapted distance sampling models and estimated the combined effects of distance, camera model, lens height, and vertical angle on the probability of detecting three different body sizes representing mammals that inhabit temperate, boreal, and arctic ecosystems. Detection probabilities were best explained by a half-normal-logistic mixture and were influenced by all experimental covariates. Detection monotonically declined when proxies were ≥6 m from the camera; however, models show that body size and camera model mediated the effect of distance on detection. Although not a focus of our study, we found that unmodeled heterogeneity arising from solar position has the potential to bias inferences where animal movements vary over time. Understanding heterogeneous detection probabilities is valuable when designing and analyzing camera trap studies. We provide a general experimental and analytical framework that ecologists, citizen scientists, and others can use and adapt to optimize camera protocols for various wildlife species and communities. Applying our framework can help ecologists assess trade-offs that arise from interactions among distance, cameras, and body sizes before committing resources to field data collection.
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.