A comparison of the effectiveness of camera trapping and live trapping for sampling terrestrial small-mammal communities

266 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

The history of wildlife camera trapping as a survey tool in Australia (2015, background): “Some species may be detectedmore consistentlywith camera trapswhile others are best surveyed using traditionalmethods (DeBondi et al. 2010;Vernes and Jarman 2011).”
Quantifying the sensitivity of camera traps: an adapted distance sampling approach (2011, background): “Because of an assumption (usually implicit) that detectability is too uncertain for smaller species, few previous studies have considered using camera traps to obtain data on them (but see Oliveira-Santos, Tortato, & Graipel 2008; De Bondi et al. 2010).”
Towards good practice guidance in using camera‐traps in ecology: influence of sampling design on validity of ecological inferences (2013, background): “Although most studies usually use movement- instead of time-triggered cameras (e.g. Bowkett, Rovero &Marshall 2007; De Bondi et al. 2010; Linkie & Ridout 2011; Royle et al. 2011), it is important to note that movementtriggered cameras recorded overall a lower number of daily presences than…”