ArticlePloS one2026
Shy or bold, all get caught: Two active capture methods show no behavioural bias in a large herbivore.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Behavioural studies often assume that sampled individuals represent the broader population, yet behaviour-dependent capture bias can distort behavioural and ecological inferences. While more risk-prone individuals are likely to be overrepresented in captured samples, the potential for bias in wild animals, particularly large mammals, remains unclear due to the inherent difficulties in assessing it. This study tested whether chemical immobilisation and drop nets yielded samples of Northern chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra) representative of the population with respect to ecologically relevant behaviours related to the individual exposure to risks. We recorded the spontaneously exhibited behaviours of 25 free-ranging adult chamois previously captured and tagged, alongside their non-captured counterparts. First, we assessed the repeatability of key behaviours with expected positive (eating, walking, aggression) or negative (standing, resting, group centrality) associations with risk exposure in captured chamois, to evaluate their individual consistency and suitability as indicators of inter-individual behavioural variation. Eating, standing, resting, and group centrality were significantly repeatable, while walking and aggression were not. Second, we compared the frequency of these repeatable behaviours across chamois being captured using either method and their non-captured counterparts observed in the same sessions, controlling for demographic and environmental confounding factors. Both frequentist likelihood ratio tests and Bayesian analyses provided strong evidence against the presence of capture bias, indicating that both methods yielded a behaviourally representative sample in terms of eating, standing, resting, and group centrality. With this first explicit assessment of capture bias in a large mammal, we challenge the assumption that capture systematically skews behavioural data in wild animals, demonstrating that chemical immobilisation and drop nets can provide unbiased samples of behavioural diversity in chamois, and possibly in other large herbivores. Given the importance of minimising sampling biases in ecological research, we highlight the good opportunity to validate capture methods before extrapolating behavioural and ecological inferences.
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.