Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42801067›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2026

Thinking inside and outside the box: Comparing the efficacy of camera trap designs for surveying small mammals.

Phoebe Williams, Xenia Green, Amelia Grass, Anthony Caravaggi

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 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.

Phoebe Williams *School of Applied Sciences, University of South Wales, University of South Wales, Pontypridd, United Kingdom.
Xenia Green *School of Applied Sciences, University of South Wales, University of South Wales, Pontypridd, United Kingdom.
Amelia GrassSchool of Applied Sciences, University of South Wales, University of South Wales, Pontypridd, United Kingdom.
Anthony CaravaggiSchool of Applied Sciences, University of South Wales, University of South Wales, Pontypridd, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Small mammals are vital to ecosystem health and serve as key indicators of environmental changes. Population trends in the UK for many species have remained largely undocumented, however, emphasizing the need for more effective monitoring tools. This study evaluates the efficacy of three camera trap designs for detecting small mammals: no-box camera traps (NCTs), open box camera traps (OCTs), and closed tube camera traps (TCTs). Methods: The study was conducted at Silent Valley Nature Reserve, South Wales, focusing on Results: Mice ( Discussion: Boxed traps aided species identification but were affected by camera focal issues, which could be mitigated with low-cost adaptations. Our study highlights the need to consider focal species ecology when designing camera trap studies and provides a basis for the development of more effective small mammal surveys, survey methods and conservation tools.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesPhotographyAnimalsArvicolinaeEcosystemMiceMurinaeVideo RecordingBiodiversity monitoringCamera trapsCryptic species detectionDetection efficacyEcological monitoring toolsField methods in ecologyMammal ecologyPassive monitoring techniquesSmall mammalsWildlife conservation

Identifiers

PMID42801067
PMCPMC13615732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.