Density‐dependent space use affects interpretation of camera trap detection rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Camera traps (CTs) are an increasingly popular tool for wildlife survey and monitoring. Estimating relative abundance in unmarked species is often done using detection rate as an index of relative abundance, which assumes that detection rate has a positive linear relationship with true abundance. This assumption may be violated if movement behavior varies with density, but the degree to which movement behavior is density-dependent across taxa is unclear. The potential confounding of population-level relative abundance indices by movement would depend on how regularly, and by what magnitude, movement rate and home-range size vary with density. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify relationships between movement rate, home-range size, and density, across terrestrial mammalian taxa. We then simulated animal movements and CT sampling to test the effect of contrasting movement scenarios on CT detection rate indices. Overall, movement rate and home-range size were negatively correlated with density and positively correlated with one another. The strength of the relationships varied significantly between taxa and populations. In simulations, detection rates were related to true abundance but underestimated change, particularly for slower moving species with small home ranges. In situations where animal space use changes markedly with density, we estimate that up to thirty percent of a true change in relative abundance may be missed due to the confounding effect of movement, making trend estimation more difficult. The common assumption that movement remains constant across densities is therefore violated across a wide range of mammal species. When studying unmarked species using CT detection rates, researchers and managers should explicitly consider that such indices of relative abundance reflect both density and movement. Practitioners interpreting changes in camera detection rates should be aware that observed differences may be biased low relative to true changes in abundance. Further information on animal movement, or methods that do not depend on assumptions of density-independent movement, may be required to make robust inferences on population trends.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.066 | 0.258 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".