Comparing methods for sampling large- and medium-sized mammals: camera traps and track plots

By M. C. Lyra-Jorge, G. Ciocheti, V. Pivello, S. T. Meirelles. Zeitschrift f\ ur Jagdwissenschaft, 2008

177 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Small Animals

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d2334cc8eeed1d5273318b7fdc1bb1e08f34fab5

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecological Modeling

1. M. McCarthy
2. R. Tingley

In Ecology

1. Michael Stevens
2. Anthony R. Rooyen
3. M. McCarthy
4. R. Cooke
5. A. Weeks
6. R. Tingley
7. J. White
8. N. Bondi

Citations in the corpus

• A comparison of the effectiveness of camera trapping and live trapping for sampling terrestrial small-mammal communities (2010, background): “Unlike live trapping, which demands personnel spend extended periods of time monitoring traps during field sampling, camera-trapping equipment does not require constant supervision and can be left in operation for many days at a time (Lyra-Jorge et al. 2008).”
• Assessing the cost‐efficiency of environmental DNA sampling (2016, background): “Although optimal survey design protocols have been established for many traditional survey methods (Harrison 2006; Lyra-Jorge et al. 2008; Sanderlin, Block & Ganey 2014; Shannon, Lewis &Gerber 2014), most previous analyses have failed to account for temporal variation in detection probabilities…”