Patrick D. Moldowan, Doug P. Armstrong, Glenn J. Tattersall, Njal Rollinson
{"title":"A comparison of monitoring methods for inferring demographics of a pond-breeding amphibian population over 14 years","authors":"Patrick D. Moldowan, Doug P. Armstrong, Glenn J. Tattersall, Njal Rollinson","doi":"10.1002/jwmg.70225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Long-term monitoring for conservation typically requires unbiased estimates or indices of abundance, thereby allowing inference of population trends. Biased estimates can arise when individuals vary in capture probability, especially when overall capture probability is low. We used 3 methods to compare estimates and indexes of the abundance and sex ratio of spotted salamanders (<i>Ambystoma maculatum</i>) breeding in a 4-ha lake over 14 years to counts from a drift fence around the perimeter of the lake. The 3 sampling methods were 1) deployment of aquatic funnel traps around the lake and marking all individuals captured; 2) counting egg masses on the lake; and 3) surveying a coverboard array around the perimeter. To estimate male and female abundance and survival from the aquatic trapping data, we fitted a state-space formulation of the Jolly-Seber model with data augmentation to the encounter histories. We compared model formulations with and without individual heterogeneity in capture probability. Annual breeding turnout at the drift fence varied from 4,476 to 5,282 individuals for the 3 years surveyed. Abundance estimates from aquatic trapping data were substantially underestimated (lower by 67–75%) relative to drift fence counts when individual heterogeneity in capture probability was not addressed, whereas including individual heterogeneity resulted in sex-specific abundance estimates that were consistent with drift fence surveys. Raw sex ratios from aquatic trapping were male-biased (ranging from 0.67 to 0.81 proportion male, or 2.0:1 to 4.2:1 as a male:female ratio), whereas counts from the drift fence survey and estimates from the Jolly-Seber model with individual heterogeneity indicated female-biased sex ratios (ranging from 0.35 to 0.49 proportion male, or a ratio of 0.54:1 to 0.95:1). Egg mass counts were weakly correlated with abundance estimates, and cover board surveys detected less than 1% of the population. Our study underscores the utility of drift fence surveys as a reference for estimating the abundance of breeding individuals and the importance of considering individual heterogeneity in capture probability when estimating abundance of pond-breeding amphibians from capture data with imperfect detection. Our study also cautions that potential indices of abundance, such as egg-mass counts and coverboard counts, should be validated against reliable abundance estimates.</p>","PeriodicalId":17504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Management","volume":"90 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jwmg.70225","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Wildlife Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.70225","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/5/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Long-term monitoring for conservation typically requires unbiased estimates or indices of abundance, thereby allowing inference of population trends. Biased estimates can arise when individuals vary in capture probability, especially when overall capture probability is low. We used 3 methods to compare estimates and indexes of the abundance and sex ratio of spotted salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum) breeding in a 4-ha lake over 14 years to counts from a drift fence around the perimeter of the lake. The 3 sampling methods were 1) deployment of aquatic funnel traps around the lake and marking all individuals captured; 2) counting egg masses on the lake; and 3) surveying a coverboard array around the perimeter. To estimate male and female abundance and survival from the aquatic trapping data, we fitted a state-space formulation of the Jolly-Seber model with data augmentation to the encounter histories. We compared model formulations with and without individual heterogeneity in capture probability. Annual breeding turnout at the drift fence varied from 4,476 to 5,282 individuals for the 3 years surveyed. Abundance estimates from aquatic trapping data were substantially underestimated (lower by 67–75%) relative to drift fence counts when individual heterogeneity in capture probability was not addressed, whereas including individual heterogeneity resulted in sex-specific abundance estimates that were consistent with drift fence surveys. Raw sex ratios from aquatic trapping were male-biased (ranging from 0.67 to 0.81 proportion male, or 2.0:1 to 4.2:1 as a male:female ratio), whereas counts from the drift fence survey and estimates from the Jolly-Seber model with individual heterogeneity indicated female-biased sex ratios (ranging from 0.35 to 0.49 proportion male, or a ratio of 0.54:1 to 0.95:1). Egg mass counts were weakly correlated with abundance estimates, and cover board surveys detected less than 1% of the population. Our study underscores the utility of drift fence surveys as a reference for estimating the abundance of breeding individuals and the importance of considering individual heterogeneity in capture probability when estimating abundance of pond-breeding amphibians from capture data with imperfect detection. Our study also cautions that potential indices of abundance, such as egg-mass counts and coverboard counts, should be validated against reliable abundance estimates.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Wildlife Management publishes manuscripts containing information from original research that contributes to basic wildlife science. Suitable topics include investigations into the biology and ecology of wildlife and their habitats that has direct or indirect implications for wildlife management and conservation. This includes basic information on wildlife habitat use, reproduction, genetics, demographics, viability, predator-prey relationships, space-use, movements, behavior, and physiology; but within the context of contemporary management and conservation issues such that the knowledge may ultimately be useful to wildlife practitioners. Also considered are theoretical and conceptual aspects of wildlife science, including development of new approaches to quantitative analyses, modeling of wildlife populations and habitats, and other topics that are germane to advancing wildlife science. Limited reviews or meta analyses will be considered if they provide a meaningful new synthesis or perspective on an appropriate subject. Direct evaluation of management practices or policies should be sent to the Wildlife Society Bulletin, as should papers reporting new tools or techniques. However, papers that report new tools or techniques, or effects of management practices, within the context of a broader study investigating basic wildlife biology and ecology will be considered by The Journal of Wildlife Management. Book reviews of relevant topics in basic wildlife research and biology.