ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2026
Short-distance detectability in camera trap surveys: implications for population assessment.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.