The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals: a comment on misleading conclusions

By Christopher S. Jennelle, Michael C. Runge, D. MacKenzie. 2002

161 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e4705f9bf928a14cf22d391aef91d9724cd147f5

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

In Ecology

Citations in the corpus

Estimating Bobcat Abundance Using Automatically Triggered Cameras (2006, background): “…(1995) and Karanth and Nichols (1998) preferred automaticcamera surveys over spoor-count indices and pug surveys for tiger (Panthera tigris) populations because camera surveys provided density estimates as well as indices of relative abundance (Carbone et al. 2001, 2002, Jennelle et al. 2002).”
Monitoring diversity and abundance of mammals with camera traps: a case study on Mount Tsukuba, central Japan (2004, background): “Jennelle et al. (2002) also urged that camera-based encounter rates should be calibrated against an independent measure of density to demonstrate a functional relationship between a species and the locations studied.”
Effects of human–carnivore conflict on tiger (Panthera tigris) and prey populations in Lao PDR (2006, methodology): “We used an index of prey abundance rather than more preferable mark–recapture-based estimates of abundance that incorporate capture probability ( Jennelle, Runge & MacKenzie, 2002; Karanth et al., 2004) because photographs of prey species could not be reliably identified to individuals by their mar”
Evaluating Methods for Counting Cryptic Carnivores (2009, methodology): “Although most such methods attempt to employ a framework that is repeatable and objective, considerable conjecture remains over their theoretical applicability, and few have been tested in terms of accuracy or precision (Jennelle et al. 2002, Karanth et al. 2003).”
Abundance, Density and Relative Abundance: A Conceptual Framework (2011, background): “This issue is especially acute for sampling cryptic or rare species, typical target species in camera trap surveys (Carbone et al. 2001, 2002; Jennelle et al. 2002).”
Crouching tigers, hidden prey: Sumatran tiger and prey populations in a tropical forest landscape (2003, methodology): “Photographs from camera traps have been used by Karanth (1995) and Karanth & Nichols (1998, 2000) in combination with mark–recapture models to determine tiger densities in India.”
Camera Trapping of Carnivores: Trap Success Among Camera Types and Across Species, and Habitat Selection by Species, on Salt Pond Mountain, Giles County, Virginia (2008, methodology): “Photographic detection rates have been calibrated for Panthera tigris L. (tiger), but even this remains controversial (Carbone et al. 2001, 2002; Jennelle et al. 2002).”
Influence of camera-trap sampling design on mammal species capture rates and community structures in southeastern Brazil (2013, methodology): “It is thus important to evaluate differences in capture efficiency to distinguish true absence from the non-detection of a species in mammal inventories (Jennelle et al. 2002).”
Habitat selection by large mammals in a southern Brazilian Atlantic Forest (2009, background): “The use of photographic rates as indices of abundance is subject to a number of assumptions, mainly when individuals are not identifiable (Jennelle et al. 2002).”
Camera trapping photographic rate as an index of density in forest ungulates (2009, background): “…based on indices and, particularly, the use of camera trapping rates as an index of abundance, have been widely debated (Carbone et al. 2002; Jennelle et al. 2002; Williams et al. 2002; Karanth et al. 2003; O’Brien, in press), and they mainly relate to the need for calibrating the index…”