The DOI matches its Crossref record; 100 of the 100 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Snap happy: camera traps are an effective sampling tool when compared with alternative methods
Open accessAbstract
Camera traps have become a ubiquitous tool in ecology and conservation. They are routinely deployed in wildlife survey and monitoring work, and are being advocated as a tool for planetary-scale biodiversity monitoring. The camera trap's widespread adoption is predicated on the assumption of its effectiveness, but the evidence base for this is lacking. Using 104 past studies, we recorded the qualitative overall recommendations made by study authors (for or against camera traps, or ambiguous), together with quantitative data on the effectiveness of camera traps (e.g. number of species detected or detection probabilities) relative to 22 other methods. Most studies recommended the use of camera traps overall and they were 39% more effective based on the quantitative data. They were significantly more effective compared with live traps (88%) and were otherwise comparable in effectiveness to other methods. Camera traps were significantly more effective than other methods at detecting a large number of species (31% more) and for generating detections of species (91% more). This makes camera traps particularly suitable for broad-spectrum biodiversity surveys. Film camera traps were found to be far less effective than digital models, which has led to an increase in camera trap effectiveness over time. There was also evidence from the authors that the use of attractants with camera traps reduced their effectiveness (counter to their intended effect), while the quantitative data indicated that camera traps were more effective in closed than open habitats. Camera traps are a highly effective wildlife survey tool and their performance will only improve with future technological advances. The images they produce also have a range of other benefits, for example as digital voucher specimens and as visual aids for outreach. The evidence-base supports the increasing use of camera traps and underlines their suitability for meeting the challenges of global-scale biodiversity monitoring.
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
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01 · Cited by 86,835
A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems: Data exploration
Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., & Elphick, C. S. (2010) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2009.00001.x · Cited by 8,228
The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology
Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J., & Curtis, P. S. (1999) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:tmaorr]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 4,704
Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations
Gelman, A. (2008) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.3107 · Cited by 2,522
Multimodel inference in ecology and evolution: challenges and solutions
GRUEBER, C. E., NAKAGAWA, S., LAWS, R. J., & JAMIESON, I. G. (2011) · Journal of Evolutionary Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02210.x · Cited by 2,263
Burton, A. C., Neilson, E., Moreira, D., Ladle, A., Steenweg, R., Fisher, J. T., Bayne, E., & Boutin, S. (2015) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12432 · Cited by 1,258
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
STATISTICAL ISSUES IN ECOLOGICAL META-ANALYSES
Gurevitch, J., & Hedges, L. V. (1999) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1142:siiema]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,081
Methodological issues and advances in biological meta-analysis
Nakagawa, S., & Santos, E. S. A. (2012) · Evolutionary Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10682-012-9555-5 · Cited by 1,032
Cited by
Abundance estimation of unmarked animals based on camera‐trap data
Gilbert, N. A., Clare, J. D. J., Stenglein, J. L., & Zuckerberg, B. (2021) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.13517 · Cited by 283
Metadata
- Authors
- Wearn, O. R., & Glover-Kapfer, P.
- Venue
- Royal Society Open Science
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2019-03
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 181748
- ISSN
- 2054-5703 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2920205809
- Cited by
- 253
- References
- 100
- FWCI
- 13.85
- 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: Snap happy: camera traps are an effective sampling tool when compared with alternative methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rsos.181748
- The paper
- Wearn, O. R., & Glover-Kapfer, P. (2019). Snap happy: camera traps are an effective sampling tool when compared with alternative methods. Royal Society Open Science. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181748
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.