A comparison of scan and focal sampling in estimating activity budgets, diet composition, and proximity patterns of a wild pair-living primate

IF 1.2 4区 生物学 Q2 ZOOLOGY
Katherina Tesar, Eckhard W. Heymann, Sofya Dolotovskaya
{"title":"A comparison of scan and focal sampling in estimating activity budgets, diet composition, and proximity patterns of a wild pair-living primate","authors":"Katherina Tesar, Eckhard W. Heymann, Sofya Dolotovskaya","doi":"10.1163/14219980-bja10016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The choice of behavioral sampling method can impact the outcome of data collection, however, few direct comparisons between methods have been made. We compared the performance of instantaneous group scan sampling (scan sampling) and focal continuous sampling with variable session durations (focal sampling) in estimating activity patterns, diet composition, and spatial proximity in seven groups of wild coppery titi monkeys ( Plecturocebus cupreus ) in Peruvian Amazonia. We used a series of paired samples Wilcoxon tests to compare daily proportions of time allocated to each type of activity/food/proximity category in each sampling method. In addition, we compared our results with those of other studies conducted on the same population of titi monkeys at other times. Focal sampling provided significantly lower estimates for moving time and significantly higher estimates for resting time compared to scan sampling, likely because scan sampling tends to give higher estimates of more conspicuous behaviors and lower estimates of less conspicuous behaviors. For diet composition, scan sampling gave similar results to other studies, while focal sampling gave significantly lower estimates for feeding on fruits and higher estimates for feeding on arthropods. The most likely reason is that focal sampling with variable session durations tends to overestimate behaviors during which a focal animal is less likely to go out of view, such as feeding on arthropods in the lower strata of the forest. Our results suggest that a pilot study comparing different methods should be conducted prior to collecting data, as not all methods are interchangeable.","PeriodicalId":50437,"journal":{"name":"Folia Primatologica","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Folia Primatologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/14219980-bja10016","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ZOOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The choice of behavioral sampling method can impact the outcome of data collection, however, few direct comparisons between methods have been made. We compared the performance of instantaneous group scan sampling (scan sampling) and focal continuous sampling with variable session durations (focal sampling) in estimating activity patterns, diet composition, and spatial proximity in seven groups of wild coppery titi monkeys ( Plecturocebus cupreus ) in Peruvian Amazonia. We used a series of paired samples Wilcoxon tests to compare daily proportions of time allocated to each type of activity/food/proximity category in each sampling method. In addition, we compared our results with those of other studies conducted on the same population of titi monkeys at other times. Focal sampling provided significantly lower estimates for moving time and significantly higher estimates for resting time compared to scan sampling, likely because scan sampling tends to give higher estimates of more conspicuous behaviors and lower estimates of less conspicuous behaviors. For diet composition, scan sampling gave similar results to other studies, while focal sampling gave significantly lower estimates for feeding on fruits and higher estimates for feeding on arthropods. The most likely reason is that focal sampling with variable session durations tends to overestimate behaviors during which a focal animal is less likely to go out of view, such as feeding on arthropods in the lower strata of the forest. Our results suggest that a pilot study comparing different methods should be conducted prior to collecting data, as not all methods are interchangeable.
比较扫描和焦点抽样在估计活动预算,饮食组成,和接近模式的野生成对生活灵长类动物
行为抽样方法的选择会影响数据收集的结果,但很少有方法之间的直接比较。我们比较了瞬时群体扫描抽样(scan sampling)和可变会话持续时间的焦点连续抽样(focal sampling)在估计秘鲁亚马逊地区7组野生铜山猴(Plecturocebus cupreus)的活动模式、饮食组成和空间接近性方面的表现。我们使用一系列配对样本Wilcoxon测试来比较每种采样方法中分配给每种活动/食物/邻近类别的每日时间比例。此外,我们还将我们的研究结果与其他时间对同一种群的虎猴进行的其他研究结果进行了比较。与扫描抽样相比,焦点抽样提供的移动时间估计值明显较低,而静止时间估计值明显较高,这可能是因为扫描抽样倾向于对更明显的行为给出更高的估计值,而对不太明显的行为给出更低的估计值。在饮食组成方面,扫描取样得出的结果与其他研究相似,而聚焦取样得出的以水果为食的估算值明显较低,而以节肢动物为食的估算值明显较高。最可能的原因是,具有可变持续时间的焦点采样往往高估了焦点动物不太可能离开视线的行为,例如在森林的较低地层中捕食节肢动物。我们的结果表明,在收集数据之前,应该进行一项比较不同方法的试点研究,因为并非所有方法都是可互换的。
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
Folia Primatologica
Folia Primatologica 生物-动物学
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
10.50%
发文量
36
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Recognizing that research in human biology must be founded on a comparative knowledge of our closest relatives, this journal is the natural scientist''s ideal means of access to the best of current primate research. ''Folia Primatologica'' covers fields as diverse as molecular biology and social behaviour, and features articles on ecology, conservation, palaeontology, systematics and functional anatomy. In-depth articles and invited reviews are contributed by the world’s leading primatologists. In addition, special issues provide rapid peer-reviewed publication of conference proceedings. ''Folia Primatologica'' is one of the top-rated primatology publications and is acknowledged worldwide as a high-impact core journal for primatologists, zoologists and anthropologists.
×
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