Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 371

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 123 of the 123 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A review of camera trapping for conservation behaviour research

Open access
Caravaggi, Anthony, Banks, Peter B., Burton, A Cole, Finlay, Caroline M. V., Haswell, Peter M., Hayward, Matt W., Rowcliffe, Marcus J., Wood, Mike D.·2017·Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation

Abstract

An understanding of animal behaviour is important if conservation initiatives are to be effective. However, quantifying the behaviour of wild animals presents significant challenges. Remote‐sensing camera traps are becoming increasingly popular survey instruments that have been used to non‐invasively study a variety of animal behaviours, yielding key insights into behavioural repertoires. They are well suited to ethological studies and provide considerable opportunities for generating conservation‐relevant behavioural data if novel and robust methodological and analytical solutions can be developed. This paper reviews the current state of camera‐trap‐based ethological studies, describes new and emerging directions in camera‐based conservation behaviour, and highlights a number of limitations and considerations of particular relevance for camera‐based studies. Three promising areas of study are discussed: (1) documenting anthropogenic impacts on behaviour; (2) incorporating behavioural responses into management planning and (3) using behavioural indicators such as giving up densities and daily activity patterns. We emphasize the importance of reporting methodological details, utilizing emerging camera trap metadata standards and central data repositories for facilitating reproducibility, comparison and synthesis across studies. Behavioural studies using camera traps are in their infancy; the full potential of the technology is as yet unrealized. Researchers are encouraged to embrace conservation‐driven hypotheses in order to meet future challenges and improve the efficacy of conservation and management processes.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/rse2.48

Cites

123 of 123 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 123 references

Cited by

See all 371

Metadata

Authors
Caravaggi, A., Banks, P. B., Burton, A. C., Finlay, C. M. V., Haswell, P. M., Hayward, M. W., Rowcliffe, M. J., & Wood, M. D.
Venue
Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-06-18
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
109-122
ISSN
2056-3485 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2700797120
Cited by
371
References
123
FWCI
13.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A review of camera trapping for conservation behaviour research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/rse2.48
The paper
Caravaggi, A., Banks, P. B., Burton, A. C., Finlay, C. M. V., Haswell, P. M., Hayward, M. W., Rowcliffe, M. J., & Wood, M. D. (2017). A review of camera trapping for conservation behaviour research. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation. https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.48

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.