ReviewAnimal welfare (South Mimms, England)2025
Rapid systematic literature review: Camera trap sampling in ecological studies: Considerations of wildlife welfare.
Review in Animal welfare (South Mimms, England), 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of camera traps in wildlife conservation and ecological research is a popular method of data capture due in large part to the perceived low interference levels for the animals being studied. However, evidence exists that some species alter their behaviour when exposed to this technology. The primary aim of this study was to address whether researchers working with this technology in the ecology and forestry fields are making considerations for the possible impacts of cameras on animal behaviour. A secondary aim was to investigate how the use of this technology is framed in recent publications. In this rapid systematic literature review, we conducted a search on Web of Science and we identified 267 papers published in the last five years, in the fields of ecology and forestry, that met our inclusion criteria. We screened the studies for mentions of the impact of camera traps on the welfare of wildlife. Surprisingly, only 7.5% of the papers considered the possible animal welfare impacts of camera use on the wildlife species of interest in their study, with most comparing it to invasive methods and therefore framing this technology positively. We strongly encourage researchers working in this field to consider the impact of this technology on the specific species being studied. Whilst we recognise that the use of camera traps avoids direct handling of the animals, the short- and long-term effects of using this technology should not be ignored and should, at a minimum, be acknowledged in the limitations.
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.