Wariness of coyotes to camera traps relative to social status and territory boundaries

By Eveline S Séquin, M. Jaeger, P. Brussard, R. Barrett. 2003

143 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Small Animals, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/76453abe369a1fc00e2124198351ef96b25361d0

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

1. T. Donovan
2. P. Mackay
3. R. Long
4. J. Buzas
5. W. Zielinski
6. Hjalmar S. Kühl
7. E. Howe
8. Marie-Lyne Després-Einspenner

In Small Animals

1. Alfonso Alonso
2. Hjalmar S. Kühl
3. E. Schauber
4. E. Hellgren
5. C. Nielsen
6. J. Kolowski
7. Damon B. Lesmeister

In Social Psychology

1. Marie-Lyne Després-Einspenner
2. S. T. Buckland
3. Alfonso Alonso
4. E. Howe
5. Hjalmar S. Kühl
6. K. Vernes
7. J. Kolowski
8. Volker Steinhage

Citations in the corpus

• Estimating Bobcat Abundance Using Automatically Triggered Cameras (2006, background): “Recently, several species of carnivores were found to be individually identifiable using automatic photography, including bobcats (Heilbrun et al. 2003), coyotes (Canis latrans; Séquin et al. 2003), and ocelots (Leopardus pardalis; Trolle and Kéry 2003).”
• Review and Meta-Analysis of Camera Effects on Avian Nest Success (2009, background): “Both canids and corvids have demonstrated aversion toward remote camera equipment, possibly driven more by wariness of human activity than generalized neophobia (Hernandez et al. 1997, Harris and Knowlton 2001, Herranz et al. 2002, Sequin et al. 2003).”
• Distance sampling with camera traps (2017, background): “Some species exhibit complex responses to CTs or are particularly wary of humans (S equin et al. 2003).”
• Arboreal camera trapping: taking a proven method to new heights (2014, background): “For example, some cameras, particularly those with a white flash, have been shown to be avoided by animals not only on the ground (S equin et al. 2003; Wegge, Pokheral & Jnawali 2004) but also in the canopy (Schipper 2007).”
• Comparing Scat Detection Dogs, Cameras, and Hair Snares for Surveying Carnivores (2007, methodology): “Although higher camera densities have been employed in other studies (Moruzzi et al. 2002, Sequin et al. 2003, Campbell 2004), we were interested in comparing methods using what we considered to be minimum effort.”
• A review of factors to consider when using camera traps to study animal behavior to inform wildlife ecology and conservation (2020, unknown): “…underlying relative, inter-specific detectability, such as variation in detectability between individuals of different sexes (Srbek-Araujo, 2018), ages (Kalan et al., 2019), or social status (Séquin et al., 2003), should be explicitly tested in an appropriate experimental and statistical framework.”
• The history of wildlife camera trapping as a survey tool in Australia (2015, background): “Camera traps do affect animal behaviour (Séquin et al. 2003; Wegge et al. 2004; Schipper 2007), although to what extent is not fully understood.”
• 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).”