ArticlePloS one2025
The continuing search for a better mouse trap: Two tests of a practical, low-cost camera trap for detecting and observing small mammals.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
The advent of digital wildlife cameras has led to a dramatic increase in the use of camera traps for mammalian biodiversity surveys, ecological studies and occupancy analyses. For cryptic mammals such as mice and shrews, whose small sizes pose many challenges for unconstrained digital photography, use of camera traps remains relatively infrequent. Here we use a practical, low-cost small mammal camera platform (the "MouseCam") that is easy and inexpensive to fabricate and deploy and requires little maintenance beyond camera service. We tested the MouseCam in two applications: a study of small mammal species composition on two transects across a barrier island and a study of small mammal occupancy along a subtle elevation gradient in a mainland forest. The MouseCam was reasonably efficient, with over 78% of all images containing a recognizable small mammal (mouse, vole, rat or shrew). We obtained an accurate estimate of species composition on the island transects, as indicated by comparison with both concurrent and long-term trapping records for the same transects. MouseCams required a smaller expenditure of personnel and transportation resources than would be required for live trapping. They also detected subtle elevation-related differences in species occupancy in the mainland forest for the marsh rice rat, with the species occurring at lower elevations in the forest. This is consistent with the typical occurrence of the marsh rice rat in marshes and wetlands. We also tested devices (barriers, runways) designed to reduce disturbance by mesopredators (e.g., raccoons). Adding an internal barrier to the MouseCam did not reduce use by white-footed mice, whereas adding an external runway did. We believe specialized small mammal camera-based sensors may have wide applicability in field studies of small mammal distribution, abundance and biology.
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.