Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40772382›Full record

ArticleEcological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America2025

Placement matters: Implications of trail- versus random-based camera-trap deployment for monitoring mammal communities.

Ilaria Greco, Marco Salvatori, Elena Buonafede, Alessandra Pistolesi, Andrea Corradini, Nadia Cappai, Matilde Marconi, Lorenzo Seidenari, Francesca Cagnacci, Francesco Rovero

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Placement matters: Implications of trail- versus random-based camera-trap deployment for monitoring mammal communities.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Ilaria GrecoDepartment of Biology, University of Florence, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6208-2465
Marco SalvatoriDepartment of Biology, University of Florence, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5491-4797
Elena BuonafedeDepartment of Biology, University of Florence, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy.
Alessandra PistolesiDepartment of Biology, University of Florence, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy.
Andrea CorradiniAnimal Ecology Unit, Fondazione Edmund Mach, Research and Innovation Centre, San Michele all'Adige, Italy.
Nadia CappaiForeste Casentinesi National Park, Pratovecchio-Stia, Italy.
Matilde MarconiDepartment of Biology, University of Florence, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy.
Lorenzo SeidenariDepartment of Information Engineering, University of Firenze, Florence, Italy.
Francesca CagnacciAnimal Ecology Unit, Fondazione Edmund Mach, Research and Innovation Centre, San Michele all'Adige, Italy.
Francesco RoveroDepartment of Biology, University of Florence, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy.

Funding

European Union-Next Generation EU's National Biodiversity Future Centre through the Italian Ministry of University and ResearchParco Nazionale Foreste Casentinesi
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Optimizing protocols to assess and monitor mammal communities is essential to meet the current biodiversity targets of halting species loss. Camera-traps are the most effective tool for multispecies monitoring, yet their deployment strategy is debated, with two main strategies adopted: trail- and random-based camera deployment. To date, few studies have compared these two strategies and reached contrasting recommendations. Here, by simultaneously deploying 60 camera-traps for each placement strategy in a National Park in central Italy, we aimed to assess differences in species richness and composition, photographic rate, detection/occupancy probabilities, also in responses to environmental and anthropogenic variables, and temporal activity. Site species richness was greater on than off-trails, with elusive carnivores mainly detected on trails. Community composition was different, with a smaller proportion of ungulates on trails, and lower detections of carnivores off-trails. Photographic rate, detection, and occupancy probabilities were higher on trails for almost all mammals. Occupancy responses to environmental variables did not match, possibly due to the different behavioral strategy adopted by mammals (trails for movement, off-trails for resting and foraging). Thus, a mixed approach with cameras located both on- and off-trails is recommended when studying habitat use. We also found a consistent negative response of occupancy and site-use intensity to human frequentation, with mammals avoiding both highly frequented trails and adjacent random sites. Temporal activity curves were similar between designs, suggesting that the choice of the sampling strategy would not bias the inference. However, nocturnal behavior was higher on trails for some species, indicating varying degrees of temporal avoidance of humans. With faster data accumulation, easier accessibility of sampling sites, and the ability to record human activity, on-trail cameras are more efficient than off-trail cameras for monitoring mammal communities.

Indexed as

EcosystemEnvironmental MonitoringMammalsPhotographyAnimalsBiodiversityItalyanthropogenic disturbancebiodiversity monitoringcamera‐trapping protocolsmammal communitiessampling design

Identifiers

PMID40772382
PMCPMC12329709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.