One size does not fit all: a novel approach for determining the Realised Viewshed Size for remote camera traps
Brendan M. CarswelliD, Tal AvgariD, Garrett M. StreetiD, Sean P. BoyleiD, Eric Vander WaliD
Abstract
1. Camera traps (CTs) have become cemented as an important tool of wildlife research, yet, their utility is now extending beyond academics, as CTs can contribute to more inclusive place-based wildlife management. From advances in analytics and technology, CT-based density estimates of wildlife is an emerging field of research. Most CT-based density methods require an estimate of the size of the viewshed monitored by each CT, a parameter that may be highly variable and difficult to quantify. 2. Here, we developed and tested a standardized field and analytical method allowing us to predict the probability of photographic capture as it varies within CT viewshed. We investigated how capture probability changes due to environmental influences, i.e., vegetation structure, ambient temperature, speed of subject, time of day, in addition to internal factors from CTs themselves, i.e., sensitivity settings, number of photos taken, and CT brand. We then summarize these spatial capture probability kernels into a Realised Viewshed Size (RVS)--the capture-probability corrected size of a CTs viewshed 3. We found that RVS values are heavily influenced by location-specific environmental factors, i.e., vegetation structure, technological delays associated with CTs themselves, i.e., refractory period, and internal CT settings, i.e., sensitivity, number of photographs taken. We also found that the RVS values computed using our methodology are substantially smaller than reported values in the literature. 4. Imprecision surrounding CT viewshed areas can create propagating bias when implementing CT-based density estimators. Our method can change how practitioners consider photographs for use in CT density estimators thus increasing the reliability of CT-based density estimation, and contribute to more accessible wildlife management practices.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 5
- FWCI
- 2.20
- Field percentile
- top 15%
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Incorporating habitat selection does not account for nonrandom camera deployment in a design-based viewshed density estimator
Ehsan M. Moqanaki, Jennifer L. Stenglein, … Paul M. Lukacs·bioRxiv·Aug 22, 2025
- Estimating animal density with camera traps: a practitioner's guide of the REST model
Y. Nakashima, G. Yajima, S. Hongo·bioRxiv·May 18, 2021
- Double-observer approach with camera traps: Towards an unbiased density estimation of unmarked animal populations
Y. Nakashima, S. Hongo, … Z. C. B. Dzefck·bioRxiv·Apr 9, 2021
- Towards an automated protocol for wildlife density estimation using camera-traps
Andrea Zampetti, Davide Mirante, … Luca Santini·Methods in Ecology and EvolutionPeer-reviewed·Nov 11, 2024
- Evaluating camera trap methods for monitoring population trends in ungulates: insights from simulation
Clément Calenge, Sonia Saı̈d, … Maryline Pellerin·EcospherePeer-reviewed·Jul 1, 2026
- Camera trap monitoring of unmarked animals: a map of the relationships between population size estimators
Clément Calenge·Peer Community JournalPeer-reviewed·May 11, 2026