Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 294

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantifying the sensitivity of camera traps: an adapted distance sampling approach

Open access
Marcus Rowcliffe, J., Carbone, Chris, Jansen, Patrick A., Kays, Roland, Kranstauber, Bart·2011·Methods in Ecology and Evolution

Abstract

Summary: 1. Abundance estimation is a pervasive goal in ecology. The rate of detection by motion‐sensitive camera traps can, in principle, provide information on the abundance of many species of terrestrial vertebrates that are otherwise difficult to survey. The random encounter model (REM,Rowcliffe et al.2008) provides a means estimating abundance from camera trap rate but requires camera sensitivity to be quantified. 2. Here, we develop a method to estimate the area effectively monitored by cameras, which is one of the most important codeterminants of detection rate. Our method borrows from distance sampling theory, applying detection function models to data on the position (distance and angle relative to the camera) where the animals are first detected. Testing the reliability of this approach through simulation, we find that bias depends on the effective detection angle assumed but was generally low at less than 5% for realistic angles typical of camera traps. 3. We adapted standard detection functions to allow for the possibility of smaller animals passing beneath the field of view close to the camera, resulting in reduced detection probability within that zone. Using a further simulation to test this approach, we find that detection distance can be estimated with little or no bias if detection probability is certain for at least some distance from the camera. 4. Applying this method to a 1‐year camera trapping data set from Barro Colorado Island, Panama, we show that effective detection distance is related strongly positively to species body mass and weakly negatively to species average speed of movement. There was also a strong seasonal effect, with shorter detection distance during the wet season. Effective detection angle is related more weakly to species body mass, and again strongly to season, with a wider angle in the wet season. 5. This method represents an important step towards practical application of the REM, including abundance estimation for relatively small (<1 kg) species.

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 · 10.1111/j.2041-210x.2011.00094.x

Cites

31 of 31 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 31 references

Cited by

See all 294

Metadata

Authors
Marcus Rowcliffe, J., Carbone, C., Jansen, P. A., Kays, R., & Kranstauber, B.
Venue
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-03
Volume
2
Issue
5
Pages
464-476
ISSN
2041-210X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2144068489
Cited by
294
References
31
FWCI
9.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Quantifying the sensitivity of camera traps: an adapted distance sampling approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2011.00094.x
The paper
Marcus Rowcliffe, J., Carbone, C., Jansen, P. A., Kays, R., & Kranstauber, B. (2011). Quantifying the sensitivity of camera traps: an adapted distance sampling approach. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2011.00094.x

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.