Camera trapping photographic rate as an index of density in forest ungulates

By F. Rovero, A. Marshall. 2009

426 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f941cf482b6368b2741d06eca8a566b33f860315

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

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

Citations in the corpus

"Which camera trap type and how many do I need?" A review of camera features and study designs for a range of wildlife research applications (2013, methodology): “2008), (2) relative abundance estimation by using camera trapping photographic rate (Carbone et al., 2001; O’Brien et al., 2003; Rovero and Marshall, 2009), (3) abundance and density, survival and recruitment estimations of individually recognizable species throughCaptureMark-Recapture analysis (Kar”
Quantifying the sensitivity of camera traps: an adapted distance sampling approach (2011, background): “In addition, the rate of detection of a species by camera traps (i.e. the raw number of records per unit time) may correlate well with animal density (Carbone et al. 2001; Kelly 2008; Rovero & Marshall 2009), suggesting a potential to use trap rate as an index of abundance.”
Management by proxy?:the use of indices in applied ecology (2015, background): “Adjusting for activity or travel distances can also facilitate comparisons of abundance indices across species, whether those indices are based on track counts (Keeping 2014) or photographic trapping rates (Rowcliffe et al. 2008; Rovero et al. 2009).”
Estimating animal density without individual recognition using information derivable exclusively from camera traps (2018, background): “Line- transect surveys of live animals often underestimate animal densities because animals may avoid or escape from observers (Marini, Franzetti, Calabrese, Cappellini, & Focardi, 2009; Rovero & Marshall, 2009).”
Niche partitioning and species coexistence in a Neotropical felid assemblage. (2010, background): “While the frequency of camera-trap records of a species may be positively correlated with its abundance (Carbone et al., 2001; Rovero and Marshall, 2009) this relationship may not hold in across-species comparisons for several reasons.”
An invasive‐native mammalian species replacement process captured by camera trap survey random encounter models (2016, background): “…rufogriseus, Chinese water deer Hydropotes inermis, and Reeve’s muntjac Muntiacus reevesi (Rowcliffe et al. 2008); wild lowland tapir Tapirus terrestris (Oliveira-Santos et al. 2010), pine marten Martes martes (Manzo et al. 2011), and Harvey’s duiker Cephalophus harveyi (Rovero and Marshall 2009).”
Distance sampling with camera traps (2017, methodology): “…due to effects of evasive movement and behaviour in response to observers on both the encounter rate and thedistributionof observeddistances (Koster&Hart 1988; Jathanna, Karanth & Johnsingh 2003; Rovero & Marshall 2004, 2009; N’Goran 2006; Marshall, Lovett & White 2008; Marini et al. 2009).”
Influence of camera-trap sampling design on mammal species capture rates and community structures in southeastern Brazil (2013, methodology): “…records as surrogates for abundance and population density of species whose individuals cannot be identified (Carbone et al. 2001, 2002, Jennelle et al. 2002, Yasuda 2004, Larrucea et al. 2007, Srbek-Araujo & Chiarello 2007, Rowcliffe et al. 2008, Rovero & Marshall 2009, Harmsen et al. 2010).”