The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Estimating wildlife activity curves: comparison of methods and sample size
Open accessAbstract
Camera traps and radiotags commonly are used to estimate animal activity curves. However, little empirical evidence has been provided to validate whether they produce similar results. We compared activity curves from two common camera trapping techniques to those from radiotags with four species that varied substantially in size (~1 kg–~50 kg), diet (herbivore, omnivore, carnivore), and mode of activity (diurnal and crepuscular). Also, we sub-sampled photographs of each species with each camera trapping technique to determine the minimum sample size needed to maintain accuracy and precision of estimates. Camera trapping estimated greater activity during feeding times than radiotags in all but the carnivore, likely reflective of the close proximity of foods readily consumed by all species except the carnivore (i.e., corn bait or acorns). However, additional analyses still indicated both camera trapping methods produced relatively high overlap and correlation to radiotags. Regardless of species or camera trapping method, mean overlap increased and overlap error decreased rapidly as sample sizes increased until an asymptote near 100 detections which we therefore recommend as a minimum sample size. Researchers should acknowledge that camera traps and radiotags may estimate the same mode of activity but differ in their estimation of magnitude in activity peaks.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures
Karanth, K. U., & Nichols, J. D. (1998) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079[2852:eotdii]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,176
Surveys using camera traps: are we looking to a brighter future?
Rowcliffe, J. M., & Carbone, C. (2008) · Animal Conservation · doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.2008.00180.x · Cited by 279
Cited by
Srinivasaiah, N., Kumar, V., Vaidyanathan, S., Sukumar, R., & Sinha, A. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-45130-1 · Cited by 91
Effects of increasing carrion biomass on food webs
Baruzzi, C., Mason, D., Barton, B., & Lashley, M. (2018) · Food Webs · doi:10.1016/j.fooweb.2018.e00096 · Cited by 35
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Lashley, M. A., Cove, M. V., Chitwood, M. C., Penido, G., Gardner, B., DePerno, C. S., & Moorman, C. E.
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Published
- 2018-03-08
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 4173-4173
- ISSN
- 2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2792876218
- Cited by
- 180
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 12.67
- 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: Estimating wildlife activity curves: comparison of methods and sample size. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41598-018-22638-6
- The paper
- Lashley, M. A., Cove, M. V., Chitwood, M. C., Penido, G., Gardner, B., DePerno, C. S., & Moorman, C. E. (2018). Estimating wildlife activity curves: comparison of methods and sample size. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22638-6
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.