Articles citing this paper
Effective detection methods for medium-sized ground-dwelling mammals: a comparison between infrared digital cameras and hair tunnels
David J. Paull A D , Andrew W. Claridge A B and Ross B. Cunningham C
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A School of Physical, Environmental and Mathematical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Northcott Drive, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia.
B Office of Environment and Heritage, Parks and Wildlife Group, Planning and Assessment Team, Southern Ranges Region, PO Box 733, Queanbeyan, NSW 2620, Australia.
C Fenner School for Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: dpaull@adfa.edu.au
Wildlife Research 39(6) 546-553 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR12034
Submitted: 15 February 2012 Accepted: 5 July 2012 Published: 14 August 2012
27 articles found in Crossref database.
The effectiveness and cost of camera traps for surveying small reptiles and critical weight range mammals: a comparison with labour-intensive complementary methods
Welbourne Dustin J.,
MacGregor Christopher,
Paull David, Lindenmayer David B.
Wildlife Research. 2015 42(5). p.414
The history of wildlife camera trapping as a survey tool in Australia
Meek Paul D.,
Ballard Guy-Anthony,
Vernes Karl, Fleming Peter J. S.
Australian Mammalogy. 2015 37(1). p.1
A frontier in the use of camera traps: surveying terrestrial squamate assemblages
Welbourne Dustin J.,
Paull David J.,
Claridge Andrew W.,
Ford Frederic,
Rowcliffe Marcus, De Angelo Carlos
Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation. 2017 3(3). p.133
Elliott traps found to be ineffective for the survey of swamp skink (Lissolepis coventryi): a cautionary tale of outdated survey guidelines
Humphrey Jacinta E.,
Robert Kylie A., Leonard Steve W. J.
Wildlife Research. 2017 44(7). p.514
Review: COVID-19 highlights the importance of camera traps for wildlife conservation research and management
Blount J. David,
Chynoweth Mark W.,
Green Austin M., Şekercioğlu Çağan H.
Biological Conservation. 2021 256 p.108984
Oils ain’t oils: can truffle-infused food additives improve detection of rare and cryptic mycophagous mammals?
Claridge Andrew W.,
Paull David J., Cunningham Ross B.
Australian Mammalogy. 2016 38(1). p.12
Pits or pictures: a comparative study of camera traps and pitfall trapping to survey small mammals and reptiles
Dundas Shannon J.,
Ruthrof Katinka X.,
Hardy Giles E. St.J., Fleming Patricia A.
Wildlife Research. 2019 46(2). p.104
Using complementary remote detection methods for retrofitted eco-passages: a case study for monitoring individual koalas in south-east Queensland
Dexter C. E.,
Appleby R. G.,
Edgar J. P.,
Scott J., Jones D. N.
Wildlife Research. 2016 43(5). p.369
Comparing the effectiveness of camera trapping, driven transects and ad hoc records for surveying nocturnal mammals against a known species assemblage
Hart Adam G.,
Dawson Melissa,
Fourie Richard,
MacTavish Lynne, Goodenough Anne E.
Community Ecology. 2022 23(1). p.27
Using a species distribution model to guide NSW surveys of the long‐footed potoroo (Potorous longipes)
Wauchope‐Drumm Mareshell,
Bentley Joss,
Beaumont Linda J.,
Baumgartner John B., Nipperess David A.
Austral Ecology. 2020 45(1). p.15
Locating species range frontiers: a cost and efficiency comparison of citizen science and hair-tube survey methods for use in tracking an invasive squirrel
Goldstein Emily A.,
Lawton Colin,
Sheehy Emma, Butler Fidelma
Wildlife Research. 2014 41(1). p.64
Sign surveys can be more efficient and cost effective than driven transects and camera trapping: a comparison of detection methods for a small elusive mammal, the numbat (
Seidlitz Anke,
Bryant Kate A.,
Armstrong Nicola J.,
Calver Michael C., Wayne Adrian F.
Wildlife Research. 2021 48(6). p.491
Power of faecal pellet count and camera trapping indices to monitor mammalian herbivore activity
Davis Naomi E.,
Di Stefano Julian,
Whelan Jim,
Wright John,
Taylor Lorraine,
Coulson Graeme,
Sitters Holly, Sullivan Tom
Wildlife Research. 2022 49(8). p.686
Are koalas detected more effectively by systematic spotlighting or diurnal searches?
Wilmott Lachlan,
Cullen Dympna,
Madani George,
Krogh Martin, Madden Kylie
Australian Mammalogy. 2019 41(1). p.157
The pitfalls of wildlife camera trapping as a survey tool in Australia
Meek Paul D.,
Ballard Guy-Anthony, Fleming Peter J. S.
Australian Mammalogy. 2015 37(1). p.13
Thermal cameras as a survey method for Australian arboreal mammals: a focus on the greater glider
Vinson Simon G.,
Johnson Aidan P., Mikac Katarina M.
Australian Mammalogy. 2020 42(3). p.367
Seasonal and diel activity patterns of small mammal guilds on the Pannonian Steppe: a step towards a better understanding of the ecology of the endangered Hungarian birch mouse (Sicista trizona) (Sminthidae, Rodentia)
Cserkész Tamás,
Kiss Csaba, Sramkó Gábor
Mammal Research. 2023 68(1). p.13
Identification of threatened rodent species using infrared and white-flash camera traps
Burns Phoebe A.,
Parrott Marissa L.,
Rowe Kevin C., Phillips Benjamin L.
Australian Mammalogy. 2018 40(2). p.188
Detecting mammals in heterogeneous landscapes: implications for biodiversity monitoring and management
Swan Matthew,
Di Stefano Julian,
Christie Fiona,
Steel Erin, York Alan
Biodiversity and Conservation. 2014 23(2). p.343
Elucidating Patterns in the Occurrence of Threatened Ground-Dwelling Marsupials Using Camera-Traps
Claridge ,
Paull , Welbourne
Animals. 2019 9(11). p.913
eDNA metabarcoding of log hollow sediments and soils highlights the importance of substrate type, frequency of sampling and animal size, for vertebrate species detection
Ryan Ethan,
Bateman Philip,
Fernandes Kristen,
van der Heyde Mieke, Nevill Paul
Environmental DNA. 2022 4(4). p.940
Biofluorescence as a survey tool for cryptic marine species
De Brauwer Maarten,
Hobbs Jean‐Paul A.,
Ambo‐Rappe Rohani,
Jompa Jamaluddin,
Harvey Euan S., McIlwain Jennifer L.
Conservation Biology. 2018 32(3). p.706
Determining the efficacy of camera traps, live capture traps, and detection dogs for locating cryptic small mammal species
Thomas Morgan L.,
Baker Lynn,
Beattie James R., Baker Andrew M.
Ecology and Evolution. 2020 10(2). p.1054
Comparing direct and indirect methods to estimate detection rates and site use of a cryptic semi-aquatic carnivore
Day Casey C.,
Westover Matthew D.,
Hall Lucas K.,
Larsen Randy T., McMillan Brock R.
Ecological Indicators. 2016 66 p.230
Home is where the hollow is: Revealing vertebrate tree hollow user biodiversity with eDNA metabarcoding
Newton Joshua P.,
Bateman Philip W.,
Heydenrych Matthew J.,
Mousavi‐Derazmahalleh Mahsa, Nevill Paul
Environmental DNA. 2022 4(5). p.1078
Snap happy: camera traps are an effective sampling tool when compared with alternative methods
Wearn Oliver R., Glover-Kapfer Paul
Royal Society Open Science. 2019 6(3). p.181748
Camera Trapping: A Contemporary Approach to Monitoring Invasive Rodents in High Conservation Priority Ecosystems
Rendall Anthony R.,
Sutherland Duncan R.,
Cooke Raylene,
White John, Boldgiv Bazartseren
PLoS ONE. 2014 9(3). p.e86592
