Effects of trapping effort and trap shyness on estimates of tiger abundance from camera trap studies

By P. Wegge, Chiranjibi Pd. Pokheral, S. R. Jnawali. 2004

208 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/65d71d29e1bd2fdde94c227d7c4ad053e998418d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Comparing methods for sampling large- and medium-sized mammals: camera traps and track plots (2008, background): “This may be the reason for a higher detection rate at the beginning of long term studies (Wemmer et al. 1996; York et al. 2001; Wegge et al. 2004; Jackson et al. 2006).”
Status of tigers, co-predators, and prey in India (2008, unknown): “Bandipur-Nagarhole Tiger Reserve (Karnataka)- forests of Adjacent areas of Anshi, Netravali, and Mollem in Goa are Nilgiri and Periyar districts of Tamil Nadu and Biligiri likely to have dispersing tigers from this population.”
Do tigers displace leopards? If so, why? (2010, background): “Consequently, when large prey is absent and the main food species are shared, as in our study area in Bardia, the level of interference competition would be increased due to the higher probability of encountering the opponent.”
The history of wildlife camera trapping as a survey tool in Australia (2015, background): “There is some evidence of white-flash camera traps causing animals to dramatically modify their behaviour (Major andGowing 1994;Wegge et al. 2004; Schipper 2007) and similar responses are reported using infrared despite this being a less conspicuous light source.”
A picture is worth a thousand words: the application of camera trapping to the study of birds (2008, background): “Some new features include infrared flashes that eliminate potential for trap shyness resulting from normal camera flash (Wegge et al. 2004) and use of digital surveillance cameras (Bolton et al. 2007) with passive sensor activation systems.”
Spatial and Temporal Structure of a Mesocarnivore Guild in Midwestern North America (2015, background): “The assumption that animals move independently of cameras might be violated if animals develop shyness, caused by avoid nce of either the flash of remote cameras or the cameras themselves (Séquin et al. 2003, Wegge et al. 2004, Jackson et al. 2006).”
A critique of density estimation from camera-trap data† (2012, methodology): “Wegge et al. (2004) sub-sampled survey data to determine the influence of reduced trap density on estimates of tiger abundance.”
A review of factors to consider when using camera traps to study animal behavior to inform wildlife ecology and conservation (2020, unknown): “…are more likely to be detected than those that use infrared and, as a result, have greater potential to disrupt natural behavior (Meek et al., 2014; Wegge, Pokheral, & Jnawali, 2004), particularly for wary species such as wolves, Canis lupus (Gibeau & McTavish, 2009) or coyotes, Canis latrans…”
Density of tiger and leopard in a tropical deciduous forest of Mudumalai Tiger Reserve, southern India, as estimated using photographic capture–recapture sampling (2011, methodology): “Due to different behavioral response to photo traps by tigers and leopards (Karanth and Nichols 1998; Wegge et al. 2004), we used the Mb Zippin estimator (Otis et al. 1978; Karanth 1995; Karanth and Nichols 1998) to estimate tiger population (N) while Mh Jackknife method (Otis et al. 1978) for…”