Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCacciali Sosa, Pier 
dc.contributor.authorFerreira Riveros, Marcela Verónica 
dc.date.accessioned2025-12-24T12:42:23Z
dc.date.available2025-12-24T12:42:23Z
dc.date.issued2025-07-31
dc.identifier.citationCacciali, P., & Ferreira Riveros, M. (2025). Assessing conservation monitoring funds: comparison of camera trapping and active search to survey lizards in a xerophytic neotropical forest in Paraguay. Tropical Conservation Science, 18. https://doi.org/10.1177/19400829251363883en
dc.identifier.issn1940-0829es
dc.identifier.otherhttps://doi.org/10.1177/19400829251363883es
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14066/4720
dc.descriptionCorresponding Author: Pier Cacciali, Guyra Paraguay, Av. Cnel. Carlos Bóveda, Parque Ecológico Capital Verde – Viñas Cué, Asunción 1520, Paraguay. Email: pier_cacciali@yahoo.com.en
dc.descriptionMaterial Suplementario. Para artículos publicados sin acceso abierto, todo el material suplementario tiene una licencia no exclusiva, y las solicitudes de permiso para la reutilización del material suplementario o de cualquier parte del mismo deben enviarse directamente al titular de los derechos de autor, tal como se especifica en el aviso de derechos de autor asociado al artículo.es
dc.description.abstractBackground and Research Aims: Sampling squamate reptiles in challenging environments like the Dry Chaco requires efficient methods to overcome logistical and ecological barriers. This study compares the effectiveness of camera trapping (CT) and active search (AS) for surveying lizards in a xerophytic forest in Paraguay, assessing their cost-effectiveness and complementarity. Methods: Species richness was compared across a baseline literature dataset, AS, and CT. Detection efficiency (species per hour) and cost per species detected (CPSD) were calculated. Complementarity between methods was assessed using a Complementary Index (CI). Results: Literature indicated the presence of seven lizard species in the study area. AS detected three species, CT detected four, with two species detected by both methods. CT was more cost-effective (CPSD = $135) but less efficient in terms of effort (0.00062 spp/h) compared to AS (CPSD = $965; 0.0417 spp/h). CI = 0.43, indicating moderate complementarity. Conclusion: Both methods contribute uniquely to documenting lizard diversity, with CT excelling in cost-effectiveness and AS in detection efficiency. Implications for Conservation: Combining CT and AS enhances biodiversity inventories, supporting better conservation planning in remote and arid ecosystems like the Dry Chaco.es
dc.description.sponsorshipConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologíaes
dc.format.extent7 páginases
dc.language.isoenges
dc.publisherSage Publicationses
dc.subject.otherDry Chacoes
dc.subject.otherEconomicses
dc.subject.otherIndigenous reservees
dc.subject.otherPantanales
dc.subject.otherSquamataes
dc.subject.otherTobiches
dc.titleAssessing conservation monitoring funds: comparison of camera trapping and active search to survey lizards in a xerophytic neotropical forest in Paraguayes
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiones
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/19400829251363883es
dc.description.fundingtextPrograma Paraguayo para el Desarrollo de la Ciencia y Tecnología. Sistema Nacional de Investigadoreses
dc.identifier.essn1940-0829es
dc.journal.titleTropical Conservation Sciencees
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccesses
dc.rights.copyright© 2025, Sage Publicationses
dc.volume.number18es


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Artículos científicos
    La colección comprende artículos científicos, revisiones y artículos de conferencia que son resultados de actividades científicas y de innovación financiadas por los programas PROCIENCIA y PROINNOVA.

Show simple item record