Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 169

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Using Relative Abundance Indices from Camera-Trapping to Test Wildlife Conservation Hypotheses – An Example from Khao Yai National Park, Thailand

Open access
Jenks, Kate E., Chanteap, Prawatsart, Kanda, Damrongchainarong, Peter, Cutter, Cutter, Passanan, Redford, Tim, Antony, J. Lynam, Howard, JoGayle, Leimgruber, Peter·2011·Tropical Conservation Science

Abstract

Khao Yai National Park (KYNP) is well known for its biodiversity and has the potential to serve as a regional model for wildlife conservation. From October 2003 through October 2007, the managers of KYNP conducted a Carnivore Conservation Project to develop and implement long-term monitoring of their large mammal populations. We present these data as an example to demonstrate the usefulness of long-term camera-trapping despite data that cannot be fitted to mark/recapture or occupancy statistical frameworks. Overall, a relatively high number of camera trap photographs was obtained for viverrids (four species; 44 photos) and ursids (two species; 39 photos). However, a relatively low number (range, one to eight) of camera trap photographs was obtained for each of the four felid species and two canid species detected by cameras. Of a total survey effort of 6,260 trap nights, no tigers ( Panthera tigris) were detected by camera traps, suggestive of at best a small, non-viable tiger population. Compared to previous camera-trapping efforts at KYNP, we expanded intensive sampling beyond the core area to include all zones and edges of the park. We found significantly lower relative abundance indices (RAIs) for certain mammal species, and collectively for all mammals compared to data obtained in 1999–2000 from 34 similar survey locations, suggesting population declines linked to increased human activity. Information from long-term camera-trapping can provide critical information on the occurrence of elusive species, hotspots, the role of invasive or domestic species, and an indication of the effectiveness of patrolling and other management and conservation interventions.

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 · 10.1177/194008291100400203

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.

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

Cited by

See all 169

Metadata

Authors
Jenks, K. E., Chanteap, P., Kanda, D., Peter, C., Cutter, P., Redford, T., Antony, J. L., Howard, J., & Leimgruber, P.
Venue
Tropical Conservation Science
Published
2011-06
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
113-131
ISSN
1940-0829 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1602290987
Cited by
169
References
0
FWCI
5.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Using Relative Abundance Indices from Camera-Trapping to Test Wildlife Conservation Hypotheses – An Example from Khao Yai National Park, Thailand. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/194008291100400203
The paper
Jenks, K. E., Chanteap, P., Kanda, D., Peter, C., Cutter, P., Redford, T., Antony, J. L., Howard, J., & Leimgruber, P. (2011). Using Relative Abundance Indices from Camera-Trapping to Test Wildlife Conservation Hypotheses – An Example from Khao Yai National Park, Thailand. Tropical Conservation Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/194008291100400203

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.