ArticleAmerican journal of primatology2026
Continuous Audio-Visual Sensor Monitoring Is More Effective Than Human Observers for Detecting Moor Macaques.
Article in American journal of primatology, 2026. 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.
- Continuous Audio-Visual Sensor Monitoring Is More Effective Than Human Observers for Detecting Moor Macaques.American journal of primatology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The number of species threatened with extinction is continuously increasing, underscoring the need for reliable population estimates to develop effective conservation plans. The ability to confirm a species' presence during surveys (i.e., detectability) is central for population estimates. While audio-visual sensors, like camera traps and passive acoustic monitoring (PAM), have emerged as valuable tools for monitoring primates, few studies have systematically compared their detectability, particularly in dense forests with limited visibility and for elusive species. Here, we compared 40-days continuous monitoring with audio-visual sensor (camera traps, N = 19; PAM, N = 7) versus human-based point transects with three survey visits (N = 20) on wild moor macaques (Macaca maura) in two different habitats: forest (N = 10) and open areas (N = 10). Using occupancy models to compare the detection probability (p), we found that camera traps (p = 0.63 ± 0.04) and PAM (p = 0.79 ± 0.08) outperformed point transects (p = 0.33 ± 0.07), regardless of habitat type. After equalizing survey time between methods, we found that detections were greater on point transects in surveys shorter than 1 day, but camera traps and PAM equalized their performance with two survey days (p-value < 0.05). Notably, combining both audio-visual sensors yielded the highest detectability (p = 0.87 ± 0.05). These results highlight the effectiveness of audio-visual sensors and support multi-method approaches for monitoring primates in tropical forests. Overall, this research contributes to designing more effective monitoring protocols for primate species, which are essential for planning conservation strategies.
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.