↓ Skip to main content

Random versus Game Trail-Based Camera Trap Placement Strategy for Monitoring Terrestrial Mammal Communities

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
41 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
141 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
527 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Random versus Game Trail-Based Camera Trap Placement Strategy for Monitoring Terrestrial Mammal Communities
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0126373
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeremy J. Cusack, Amy J. Dickman, J. Marcus Rowcliffe, Chris Carbone, David W. Macdonald, Tim Coulson

Abstract

Camera trap surveys exclusively targeting features of the landscape that increase the probability of photographing one or several focal species are commonly used to draw inferences on the richness, composition and structure of entire mammal communities. However, these studies ignore expected biases in species detection arising from sampling only a limited set of potential habitat features. In this study, we test the influence of camera trap placement strategy on community-level inferences by carrying out two spatially and temporally concurrent surveys of medium to large terrestrial mammal species within Tanzania's Ruaha National Park, employing either strictly game trail-based or strictly random camera placements. We compared the richness, composition and structure of the two observed communities, and evaluated what makes a species significantly more likely to be caught at trail placements. Observed communities differed marginally in their richness and composition, although differences were more noticeable during the wet season and for low levels of sampling effort. Lognormal models provided the best fit to rank abundance distributions describing the structure of all observed communities, regardless of survey type or season. Despite this, carnivore species were more likely to be detected at trail placements relative to random ones during the dry season, as were larger bodied species during the wet season. Our findings suggest that, given adequate sampling effort (> 1400 camera trap nights), placement strategy is unlikely to affect inferences made at the community level. However, surveys should consider more carefully their choice of placement strategy when targeting specific taxonomic or trophic groups.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 527 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Bulgaria 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Unknown 518 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 125 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 89 17%
Researcher 76 14%
Student > Bachelor 56 11%
Other 24 5%
Other 72 14%
Unknown 85 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 245 46%
Environmental Science 144 27%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 6 1%
Engineering 6 1%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 <1%
Other 16 3%
Unknown 107 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 August 2020.
All research outputs
#1,471,862
of 24,137,435 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#18,694
of 207,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,959
of 268,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#537
of 7,133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,137,435 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 207,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,483 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7,133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.