Skip to main content
Powered by ShareScore

Find research datasets worth reusing

Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.

107

datasets available to search

ShareScore release 0.9.0

Reset

Dataset results

107 results for “Camera trap data”

Learn how ShareScore rates datasets ↗
dryad36/100

Camera trap grey squirrel photograph data

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicMay 2023View details →
dryad36/100

Data from: Camera traps reveal seasonal variation in activity and occupancy of the Alpine mountain hare (Lepus timidus varronis)

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicFeb 2024View details →
dryad36/100

Sitka Black-tailed Deer Camera trap data for density estimation from Afognak Island, Alaska

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicNov 2024View details →
dryad36/100

Camera-trap data for fitting the random encounter model to estimate densities of coyotes and black-tailed jackrabbits in the Mojave Desert

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicNov 2024View details →
dryad36/100

Data from: Seasonality in daily movement patterns of mandrills revealed by combining direct tracking and camera traps

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicMay 2021View details →
dryad36/100

Data from: Predicting bushmeat biomass from species composition captured by camera traps: implications for locally-based wildlife monitoring

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicJul 2022View details →
dryad36/100

Data from: Inferring camera trap detection zones for rare species using species- and camera-specific traits: A meta-level analysis

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicSep 2025View details →
dryad36/100

Temporal data from camera trap captures of raccoons (Procyon lotor) and coyote (Canis latrans) across urban-rural gradient Michigan 2015-2020

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicAug 2022View details →
dryad36/100

Data from: Using camera traps to estimate habitat preferences and occupancy patterns of vertebrates in boreal wetlands

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicOct 2023View details →
dryad36/100

SNAPSHOT USA 2019-2023: The first five years of data from a coordinated camera trap survey of the United States

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicApr 2025View details →
dryad36/100

Mammalian Camera Trap Data; Northwest Arkansas

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicAug 2023View details →
dryad36/100

Using by-catch camera trapping data for estimating the population size of spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta)

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicJun 2022View details →
dryad36/100

Locations of black bear (Ursus americanus) reproduction in Nevada from camera-trap data

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicNov 2023View details →
dryad36/100

Data from: using camera traps and N-mixture models to estimate population abundance: model selection really matters

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicMar 2024View details →
dryad36/100

Camera trap data used for assessment of movement patterns by injured moose

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicJul 2022View details →
dryad36/100

Remote camera monitoring and arboreal trapping data for a reintroduced population of red-tailed phascogales (Phascogale calura)

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicJul 2024View details →
dryad32/100

Data from: Accuracy of identifications of mammal species from camera trap images: a northern Australian case study

Camera traps are a powerful and increasingly popular tool for mammal research, but like all survey methods, they have limitations. Identifying animal species from images is a critical component of camera trap studies, yet while researchers recognize constraints with experimental design or camera technology, image misidentification is still not well understood. We evaluated the effects of a species' attributes (body mass and distinctiveness) and individual observer variables (experience and confidence) on the accuracy of mammal identifications from camera trap images. We conducted an Internet‐based survey containing 20 questions about observer experience and 60 camera trap images to identify. Images were sourced from surveys in northern Australia and included 25 species, ranging in body mass from the delicate mouse (Pseudomys delicatulus, 10 g) to the agile wallaby (Macropus agilis, >10 kg). There was a weak relationship between the accuracy of mammal identifications and observer experience. However, accuracy was highest (100%) for distinctive species (e.g. Short‐beaked echidna [Tachyglossus aculeatus]) and lowest (36%) for superficially non‐distinctive mammals (e.g. rodents like the Pale field‐rat [Rattus tunneyi]). There was a positive relationship between the accuracy of identifications and body mass. Participant confidence was highest for large and distinctive mammals, but was not related to participant experience level. Identifications made with greater confidence were more likely to be accurate. Unreliability in identifications of mammal species is a significant limitation to camera trap studies, particularly where small mammals are the focus, or where similar‐looking species co‐occur. Integration of camera traps with conventional survey techniques (e.g. live‐trapping), use of a reference library or computer‐automated programs are likely to aid positive identifications, while employing a confidence rating system and/or multiple observers may lead to a collection of more robust data. Although our study focussed on Australian species, our findings apply to camera trap studies globally.

opencc-zeroDec 2018View details →
dryad32/100

Data from: Using camera trapping and hierarchical occupancy modelling to evaluate the spatial ecology of an African mammal community

Emerging conservation paradigms have shifted from single to multi-species approaches focused on sustaining biodiversity. Multi-species hierarchical occupancy modelling provides a method for assessing biodiversity while accounting for multiple sources of uncertainty. We analysed camera trapping data with multi-species models using a Bayesian approach to estimate the distributions of a terrestrial mammal community in northern Botswana and evaluate community, group, and species-specific responses to human disturbance and environmental variables. Groupings were based on two life-history traits: body size (small, medium, large and extra-large) and diet (carnivore, omnivore and herbivore). We photographed 44 species of mammals over 6607 trap nights. Camera station-specific estimates of species richness ranged from 8 to 27 unique species, and species had a mean occurrence probability of 0·32 (95% credible interval = 0·21–0·45). At the community level, our model revealed species richness was generally greatest in floodplains and grasslands and with increasing distances into protected wildlife areas. Variation among species' responses was explained in part by our species groupings. The positive influence of protected areas was strongest for extra-large species and herbivores, while medium-sized species actually increased in the non-protected areas. The positive effect of grassland/floodplain cover, alternatively, was strongest for large species and carnivores and weakest for small species and herbivores, suggesting herbivore diversity is promoted by habitat heterogeneity. Synthesis and applications. Our results highlight the importance of protected areas and grasslands in maintaining biodiversity in southern Africa. We demonstrate the utility of hierarchical Bayesian models for assessing community, group and individual species' responses to anthropogenic and environmental variables. This framework can be used to map areas of high conservation value and predict impacts of land-use change. Our approach is particularly applicable to the growing number of camera trap studies world-wide, and we suggest broader application globally will likely result in reduced costs, improved efficiency and increased knowledge of wildlife communities.

opencc-zeroDec 2015View details →
dryad32/100

Data from: Estimating density for species conservation: comparing camera trap spatial count models to genetic spatial capture-recapture models

Density estimation is integral to the effective conservation and management of wildlife. Camera traps in conjunction with spatial capture-recapture (SCR) models have been used to accurately and precisely estimate densities of "marked" wildlife populations comprising identifiable individuals. The emergence of spatial count (SC) models holds promise for cost-effective density estimation of "unmarked" wildlife populations when individuals are not identifiable. We evaluated model agreement, precision, and survey costs, between i) a fully marked approach using SCR models fit using non-invasive genetic data, and ii) an unmarked approach using SC models fit using camera trap data, for a recovering population of the mesocarnivore fisher (Pekania pennanti). The SCR density estimates ranged from 2.95 to 3.42 (2.18–5.19 95% BCI) fishers 100 km−2. The SC density estimates were influenced by their priors, ranging from 0.95 (0.65–2.95 95% BCI) fishers 100 km−2 for the uninformative model to 3.60 (2.01–7.55 95% BCI) fishers 100 km−2 for the model informed by prior knowledge of a 16 km2 fisher home range. We caution against using strongly informative priors but instead recommend using a range of unweighted prior knowledge. Thin detection data was problematic for both SCR and SC models, potentially producing biased low estimates. The total cost of the genetic survey ($47 610) was two-thirds of the camera trap survey ($77 080), or comparable ($75 746) if genetic sampling effort was increased to include sex and trap-behaviour covariates in SCR models. Density estimation of unmarked populations continues to be a series of trade-offs but as methods improve and integrate, so will our estimates.

opencc-zeroDec 2017View details →
dryad32/100

Data from: Random versus game trail-based camera trap placement strategy for monitoring terrestrial mammal communities

Camera trap surveys exclusively targeting features of the landscape that increase the probability of photographing one or several focal species are commonly used to draw inferences on the richness, composition and structure of entire mammal communities. However, these studies ignore expected biases in species detection arising from sampling only a limited set of potential habitat features. In this study, we test the influence of camera trap placement strategy on community-level inferences by carrying out two spatially and temporally concurrent surveys of medium to large terrestrial mammal species within Tanzania's Ruaha National Park, employing either strictly game trail-based or strictly random camera placements. We compared the richness, composition and structure of the two observed communities, and evaluated what makes a species significantly more likely to be caught at trail placements. Observed communities differed marginally in their richness and composition, although differences were more noticeable during the wet season and for low levels of sampling effort. Lognormal models provided the best fit to rank abundance distributions describing the structure of all observed communities, regardless of survey type or season. Despite this, carnivore species were more likely to be detected at trail placements relative to random ones during the dry season, as were larger bodied species during the wet season. Our findings suggest that, given adequate sampling effort (> 1400 camera trap nights), placement strategy is unlikely to affect inferences made at the community level. However, surveys should consider more carefully their choice of placement strategy when targeting specific taxonomic or trophic groups.

opencc-zeroDec 2014View details →

ScienceDex guides

Understand access before you commit

These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.

Compare curated datasets

Allen Brain Atlas

Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.

allen-brain-atlas
neuroscienceopenDocumentation, web resources, and API references are available online.
Last verified 2026-04-30Open record

Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)

ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.

abode-home-cage
behavioral-neuroscienceopenThe DataShare record exposes download links for annotations, documentation, license text, and the zipped per-snippet data directory.
Last verified 2026-04-30Open record

DANDI Archive for NWB datasets

DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.

dandi-nwb
electrophysiologyopenPublished Dandiset metadata and archive endpoints are available through the production DANDI API.
Last verified 2026-04-30Open record

International Brain Laboratory public data

The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.

ibl
behavioral-neuroscienceopenPublic sessions can be searched and loaded from the IBL public data server through ONE.
Last verified 2026-04-29Open record

OpenNeuro

OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.

openneuro
neuroscienceopenPublished datasets are available on demand over the internet.
Last verified 2026-04-29Open record