Can Distance Sampling be Used to Estimate the Abundance of Mountain Ungulates? A Comparison of Distance Sampling and Double-Observer Survey Methods 距离样线法能用于估算山地有蹄类动物的数量吗?——距离样线法与双观察者法的比较

Lingyun Xiao, Yanlin Liu, Byron Weckworth, Luca Corlatti, Zhi Lu
{"title":"Can Distance Sampling be Used to Estimate the Abundance of Mountain Ungulates? A Comparison of Distance Sampling and Double-Observer Survey Methods\n 距离样线法能用于估算山地有蹄类动物的数量吗?——距离样线法与双观察者法的比较","authors":"Lingyun Xiao,&nbsp;Yanlin Liu,&nbsp;Byron Weckworth,&nbsp;Luca Corlatti,&nbsp;Zhi Lu","doi":"10.1002/inc3.70038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Robust population surveys and monitoring of ungulates in mountainous areas are hindered by complex terrain and limited access to remote regions. Distance sampling, a widely used method for surveying ungulates in non-mountainous habitats, faces challenges in such environments due to violations of key assumptions. In this study, we examine the assumptions underlying distance sampling and explore how they can be addressed in mountainous terrain. We then applied distance sampling to estimate the abundance of bharal (<i>Pseudois nayaur</i>) on the Tibetan Plateau and compared the results with estimates from the double-observer survey method, which is commonly used for mountain ungulates. Both methods produced highly comparable estimates—2189 from distance sampling and 2038 from the double-observer survey—approximately twice as high as the total count (963). Distance sampling yielded a wider confidence interval (95% CI: 1207–3972) than the double-observer survey (95% CI: 1405–2670). We recommend using distance sampling when human resources are limited or when the closed population assumption is difficult to meet. Otherwise, the double-observer method is preferable due to its narrower confidence intervals and greater ability to detect population changes.</p>","PeriodicalId":100680,"journal":{"name":"Integrative Conservation","volume":"4 3","pages":"302-309"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/inc3.70038","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Integrative Conservation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/inc3.70038","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Robust population surveys and monitoring of ungulates in mountainous areas are hindered by complex terrain and limited access to remote regions. Distance sampling, a widely used method for surveying ungulates in non-mountainous habitats, faces challenges in such environments due to violations of key assumptions. In this study, we examine the assumptions underlying distance sampling and explore how they can be addressed in mountainous terrain. We then applied distance sampling to estimate the abundance of bharal (Pseudois nayaur) on the Tibetan Plateau and compared the results with estimates from the double-observer survey method, which is commonly used for mountain ungulates. Both methods produced highly comparable estimates—2189 from distance sampling and 2038 from the double-observer survey—approximately twice as high as the total count (963). Distance sampling yielded a wider confidence interval (95% CI: 1207–3972) than the double-observer survey (95% CI: 1405–2670). We recommend using distance sampling when human resources are limited or when the closed population assumption is difficult to meet. Otherwise, the double-observer method is preferable due to its narrower confidence intervals and greater ability to detect population changes.

Abstract Image

Can Distance Sampling be Used to Estimate the Abundance of Mountain Ungulates? A Comparison of Distance Sampling and Double-Observer Survey Methods 距离样线法能用于估算山地有蹄类动物的数量吗?——距离样线法与双观察者法的比较
山区的人口调查和有蹄类动物监测因地形复杂和进入偏远地区的机会有限而受到阻碍。距离采样是一种广泛应用于非山地生境有蹄类动物调查的方法,在这种环境下,由于违反关键假设而面临挑战。在本研究中,我们研究了距离采样的假设,并探讨了如何在山区地形中解决这些假设。两种方法都产生了高度可比性的估计值——距离抽样得到2189个,双观察者调查得到2038个——大约是总数(963个)的两倍。距离抽样产生的置信区间(95% CI: 1207-3972)比双观察者调查(95% CI: 1405-2670)更宽。当人力资源有限或封闭人口假设难以满足时,我们建议使用距离抽样。否则,双观察者方法是可取的,因为它具有更窄的置信区间和更强的检测总体变化的能力。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书