Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41998425›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2026

Short-distance detectability in camera trap surveys: implications for population assessment.

Stefano Focardi, Isaia Maglia, Pietro Pontiggia, Barbara Franzetti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Stefano FocardiIstituto dei Sistemi Complessi del CNR, Via Madonna del Piano, 10, Sesto Fiorentino (FI), 50019, Italy. stefano.focardi@fi.isc.cnr.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7792-3757
Isaia MagliaDepartment of Biology, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Pietro PontiggiaItalian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, Rome, Italy.
Barbara FranzettiItalian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Monitoring wildlife populations is essential for conservation and management. Many statistical methods are now available for estimating population density based on camera trapping when animals are unmarked and not individually recognisable. Several of these methods assume that the detection probability is known, or rely on detection functions derived from distance sampling theory, which assume that animals are perfectly detectable when in the immediate vicinity of the camera trap. We test this last assumption on the wild boar (Sus scrofa) in the Mediterranean forest of Castelporziano (Roma, Italy), carrying out three experiments. (1) We evaluate how detection probability varies with distance (0-6 m) from camera traps using one experimental and three control cameras across 12 sites. (2) We assess the impact of imperfect detectability near camera traps on population estimates by conducting a survey with 63 camera traps deployed in a systematic-random design, in the same habitats and season as in experiment 1; we compared survey results when we substituted the detection function derived from experiment 1 with the standard detection functions used in the Random Encounter Model. (3) We compare the Bolyguard SG2060-K and Uovision UV595-HD (used in experiments 1 and 2) with the high-performance Browning Spec Ops HP5 to assess if the camera trap model may have affected our findings. We found that (1) the detection probability is less than 1 close to the camera trap; (2) the Random Encounter Model underestimated population density by 17%; and (3) there are no significant differences in performance among the three camera trap models when monitoring wild boars. These findings indicate that camera trap-based population models may yield biased estimates unless they account for detection probabilities below 1.

Indexed as

Environmental MonitoringPhotographySus scrofaAnimalsConservation of Natural ResourcesItalyPopulation DensityCamera trapDetectabilityPopulation assessmentSus scrofaWild boar

Identifiers

PMID41998425
PMCPMC13090299

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.