ArticleScientific reports2024
Leveraging limited data from wildlife monitoring in a conflict affected region in Venezuela.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conflicts hinder research into animal movements.Ambio · 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Efficient monitoring of biodiversity-rich areas in conflict-affected areas with poor rule of law requires a combination of different analytical approaches to account for data biases and incompleteness. In the upland Amazon region of Venezuela, in Canaima National Park, we initiated biodiversity monitoring in 2015, but it was interrupted by the establishment of a large-scale mining development plan in 2016, compromising the temporal and geographical extent of monitoring and the security of researchers. We used a resource selection function model framework that considers imperfect detectability and supplemented detections from camera trap surveys with opportunistic off-camera records (including animal tracks and direct sighting) to (1) gain insight into the value of additional occurrence records to accurately predict wildlife resource use in the perturbated area (deforestation, fire, swidden agriculture, and human settlements vicinity), (2) when faced with security and budget constraints. Our approach maximized the use of available data and accounted for biases and data gaps. Adding data from poorly sampled areas had mixed results on estimates of resource use for restricted species, but improved predictions for widespread species. If budget or resources are limited, we recommend focusing on one location with both on-camera and off-camera records over two with cameras. Combining camera trap records with other field observations (28 mammals and 16 birds) allowed us to understand responses of 17 species to deforestation, 15 to fire, and 13 to swidden agriculture. Our study encourages the use of combinations of methods to support conservation in high-biodiversity sites, where access is restricted, researchers are vulnerable, and unequal sampling efforts exist.
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.