Recommended guiding principles for reporting on camera trapping research
Paul D. Meek, Guy Ballard, Andrew Claridge, Roland Kays, Karl Vernes, et al. · Biodiversity and Conservation · 2014
Meek and colleagues addressed the inconsistency in how camera-trap studies report their methods, which hampers comparison, replication, and meta-analysis. They proposed a standardized set of metadata and methodological details that every study should disclose, including camera make and settings, station spacing, trigger and delay configuration, survey effort in trap-nights, deployment dates, and habitat context. Establishing these reporting norms helps ensure that results are interpretable and that datasets can be combined across studies. The paper functioned as a community standard, improving transparency and rigor in a fast-growing field. It is widely cited as the reference for minimum reporting requirements and is routinely invoked in methods sections of camera-trap papers to justify documentation practices.
Category:camera-trap-methods
Related articles
- Wildlife Insights: a platform to maximize the potential of camera trap and passive sensor datacamera-trap-methods
- Spatially explicit maximum likelihood methods for capture-recapture studiescamera-trap-methods
- Wildlife camera trapping: a review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processescamera-trap-methods
- A review of camera trapping for conservation behaviour researchcamera-trap-methods
- Spatially explicit models for inference about density in unmarked or partially marked populationscamera-trap-methods
- Random versus game trail-based camera trap placement for monitoring terrestrial mammal communitiescamera-trap-methods
AI-curated summaries for the pride’s library — verify citations independently before citing.