Sample name: Haw River

Reference: D. Muñoz, J. Kapfer, and C. Olfenbuttel. 2014. Do available products to mask human scent influence camera trap survey results?. Wildlife Biology 20(4):246-252 [ER 1725]

Habitat: temperate broadleaf/mixed forest

Substrate: ground surface

MAT: 16.0

MAP: 1010.0

Habitat comments: "mainly exurban with minor components of agriculture nearby"
climate data are for the Duke Forest and are from Caldwell (1969, Am Midl Nat)

Life forms: carnivores, rodents, ungulates, other small mammals

Site area: 16.2

Sampling methods: no design, automatic cameras

Sample size: 2051 captures or sightings

Years: 2011

Days: 158

Nets or traps: 8

Net or trap nights: 0

Camera type: unclear

Cameras paired: no

Basal area status: not applicable

Sampling comments: "We randomly applied one of two treatments, ‘scent unmasked’ or ‘scent masked’ , to each of the eight cameras... Camera traps were placed semi-randomly" within the site; "Camera traps were active at the Haw River site from early February to mid-July 2011, with each camera simultaneously in operation for 158 trap-nights"

Sample no: 1922

Contributor no: John Alroy

Enterer: John Alroy

Created: 2016-01-13 20:46:41

Modified: 2016-12-14 10:40:58