Comparing abundance estimates of a cryptic carnivore in southern Patagonia using two experimental methods

IF 2.8 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
L. M. Elbroch, S. H. Williams, O. Ohrens, K. Pilgrim, A. Moeller, S. Arroyo-Arce, M. Parker, D. Goic, H. Robinson, M. K. Schwartz
{"title":"Comparing abundance estimates of a cryptic carnivore in southern Patagonia using two experimental methods","authors":"L. M. Elbroch,&nbsp;S. H. Williams,&nbsp;O. Ohrens,&nbsp;K. Pilgrim,&nbsp;A. Moeller,&nbsp;S. Arroyo-Arce,&nbsp;M. Parker,&nbsp;D. Goic,&nbsp;H. Robinson,&nbsp;M. K. Schwartz","doi":"10.1111/acv.12915","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Determining the abundance of cryptic carnivores is central to building successful conservation management to mitigate conflicts and support coexistence strategies. For these reasons, there is considerable investment in developing reliable, cost-effective tools for estimating the abundance of wildlife. Nevertheless, field-based comparisons of abundance methods remain uncommon, even while essential to refining methods and coming to consensus around best practices. Here, we compare two approaches still being tested in real-world application for an emblematic puma (<i>Puma concolor</i>) population in the Torres del Paine UNESCO Biosphere Reserve in southern Chile: (1) the unmarked estimator, space-to-event model (STE), which utilizes photographs gathered with camera traps, and (2) the genotype spatial partial identity model (gSPIM), which is an adaptation of the more established spatially explicit genetic capture-recapture method (SECR) based on genetic data extracted from scats collected in systematic surveys. We show the tremendous variation in resulting STE estimates depending upon the start time of the analysis and length of the sampling window, and showcase a refined iterative sampling approach in a Bayesian framework to both utilize the full camera data and to stabilize density estimates for a given sampling window. Across all sampling, estimates from the STE model ranged from 3.19 (1.6–5.1 representing 10th and 90th percentile of credible intervals) to 7.38 (3.3–11.6) independent pumas 100 km<sup>−2</sup>. By comparison, our gSPIM model estimated 5.1 independent pumas 100 km<sup>−2</sup> (excluding kittens) (with credible intervals of 2.2–10.3). Neither method was compared with any known density to determine their accuracy. Nevertheless, we provide initial density estimates to guide conservation strategies for wildlife agencies and local communities overseeing and hosting nascent puma tourism and livestock ranching, as well as guidelines for the use of these methods for any wildlife species.</p>","PeriodicalId":50786,"journal":{"name":"Animal Conservation","volume":"27 3","pages":"283-292"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Conservation","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acv.12915","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Determining the abundance of cryptic carnivores is central to building successful conservation management to mitigate conflicts and support coexistence strategies. For these reasons, there is considerable investment in developing reliable, cost-effective tools for estimating the abundance of wildlife. Nevertheless, field-based comparisons of abundance methods remain uncommon, even while essential to refining methods and coming to consensus around best practices. Here, we compare two approaches still being tested in real-world application for an emblematic puma (Puma concolor) population in the Torres del Paine UNESCO Biosphere Reserve in southern Chile: (1) the unmarked estimator, space-to-event model (STE), which utilizes photographs gathered with camera traps, and (2) the genotype spatial partial identity model (gSPIM), which is an adaptation of the more established spatially explicit genetic capture-recapture method (SECR) based on genetic data extracted from scats collected in systematic surveys. We show the tremendous variation in resulting STE estimates depending upon the start time of the analysis and length of the sampling window, and showcase a refined iterative sampling approach in a Bayesian framework to both utilize the full camera data and to stabilize density estimates for a given sampling window. Across all sampling, estimates from the STE model ranged from 3.19 (1.6–5.1 representing 10th and 90th percentile of credible intervals) to 7.38 (3.3–11.6) independent pumas 100 km−2. By comparison, our gSPIM model estimated 5.1 independent pumas 100 km−2 (excluding kittens) (with credible intervals of 2.2–10.3). Neither method was compared with any known density to determine their accuracy. Nevertheless, we provide initial density estimates to guide conservation strategies for wildlife agencies and local communities overseeing and hosting nascent puma tourism and livestock ranching, as well as guidelines for the use of these methods for any wildlife species.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

用两种实验方法比较巴塔哥尼亚南部一种隐蔽食肉动物的丰度估计值
确定隐性食肉动物的丰度对于建立成功的保护管理以缓解冲突和支持共存战略至关重要。因此,在开发可靠的、具有成本效益的野生动物丰度估算工具方面投入了大量资金。尽管如此,基于实地的丰度方法比较仍不常见,尽管这对改进方法和就最佳实践达成共识至关重要。在这里,我们对智利南部托雷斯德尔潘恩联合国教科文组织生物圈保护区的标志性美洲狮(Puma concolor)种群的两种仍在实际应用中进行测试的方法进行了比较:(1)无标记估算方法,空间到事件模型(STE),该方法利用相机陷阱收集的照片;(2)基因型空间部分特征模型(gSPIM),该模型是对更成熟的空间显性遗传捕获-再捕获方法(SECR)的改编,基于系统调查中收集的粪便中提取的遗传数据。我们展示了根据分析的开始时间和采样窗口的长度所得出的 STE 估计值的巨大差异,并展示了贝叶斯框架下的一种改进的迭代采样方法,这种方法既能利用完整的照相机数据,又能稳定给定采样窗口的密度估计值。在所有采样中,STE 模型的估计值范围从 3.19(1.6-5.1,代表可信区间的第 10 和第 90 百分位数)到 7.38(3.3-11.6)独立美洲狮 100 km-2。相比之下,我们的 gSPIM 模型估计每 100 km-2 有 5.1 只独立美洲狮(不包括小美洲狮)(可信区间为 2.2-10.3)。这两种方法都没有与任何已知密度进行比较,以确定其准确性。尽管如此,我们还是提供了初步的密度估算值,以指导野生动物保护机构和当地社区监督和接待新兴美洲狮旅游业和畜牧业的保护策略,以及对任何野生动物物种使用这些方法的指导原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Animal Conservation
Animal Conservation 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
71
审稿时长
12-24 weeks
期刊介绍: Animal Conservation provides a forum for rapid publication of novel, peer-reviewed research into the conservation of animal species and their habitats. The focus is on rigorous quantitative studies of an empirical or theoretical nature, which may relate to populations, species or communities and their conservation. We encourage the submission of single-species papers that have clear broader implications for conservation of other species or systems. A central theme is to publish important new ideas of broad interest and with findings that advance the scientific basis of conservation. Subjects covered include population biology, epidemiology, evolutionary ecology, population genetics, biodiversity, biogeography, palaeobiology and conservation economics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信