Cited by 133Wildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies

Comparison of methods to detect rare and cryptic species: a case study using the red fox (Vulpes vulpes)

Vine, S. J., Crowther, M. S., Lapidge, S. J., Dickman, C. R., Mooney, N., Piggott, M. P., English, A. W.·2009·Wildlife Research

Abstract

Choosing the appropriate method to detect and monitor wildlife species is difficult if the species is rare or cryptic in appearance or behaviour. We evaluated the effectiveness of the following four methods for detecting red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) on the basis of equivalent person hours in a rural landscape in temperate Australia: camera traps, hair traps (using morphology and DNA from hair follicles), scats from bait stations (using DNA derived from the scats) and spotlighting. We also evaluated whether individual foxes could be identified using remote collection of their tissues. Genetic analysis of hair samples was the least efficient method of detection among the methods employed because of the paucity of samples obtained and the lack of follicles on sampled hairs. Scat detection was somewhat more efficient. Scats were deposited at 17% of bait stations and 80% of scats were amplified with a fox-specific marker, although only 31% of confirmed fox scats could be fully genotyped at all six microsatellite loci. Camera trapping and spotlighting were the most efficient methods of detecting fox presence in the landscape. Spotlighting success varied seasonally, with fox detections peaking in autumn (80% of spotlighting transects) and being lowest in winter (29% of transects). Cameras detected foxes at 51% of stations; however, there was limited seasonality in detection, and success rates varied with camera design. Log-linear models confirmed these trends. Our results showed that t…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1071/wr08069

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vine, S. J., Crowther, M. S., Lapidge, S. J., Dickman, C. R., Mooney, N., Piggott, M. P., & English, A. W.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • DInvasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, 48 Oxford Terrace, Unley, SA 5601, Australia.
  • Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (AU)
  • Australian National University (AU)
Corresponding author
Crowther, M. S.
Venue
Wildlife Research
Published
2009-07-21
Volume
36
Issue
5
Pages
436-446
ISSN
  • 1035-3712 (ISSN-L)
  • 1448-5494
OpenAlex
W2108997345
Cited by
133
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
FWCI
5.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Wildlife Research (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Keywords
red fox, rare species detection, cryptic species, camera trapping, hair traps, scat DNA, microsatellite genotyping, spotlighting, wildlife monitoring, invasive species

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