A comparison of monitoring methods for inferring demographics of a pond-breeding amphibian population over 14 years

IF 1.9 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ECOLOGY
Journal of Wildlife Management Pub Date : 2026-07-17 Epub Date: 2026-05-29 DOI:10.1002/jwmg.70225
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,&nbsp;Doug P. Armstrong,&nbsp;Glenn J. Tattersall,&nbsp;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.

Abstract Image

14年池塘繁殖两栖动物种群人口统计资料的监测方法比较
对保护的长期监测通常需要无偏估计或丰度指数,从而可以推断种群趋势。当个体捕获概率不同时,特别是当总体捕获概率较低时,可能会产生有偏差的估计。采用3种方法对某4 ha湖泊14年繁殖斑点蝾螈(Ambystoma maculatum)数量和性别比例的估计值和指数与湖周缘漂流围栏的计数进行了比较。3种采样方法是:1)在湖周围布设漏斗捕集器,对捕获的个体进行标记;2)数湖面上的鸡蛋团;3)在周边测量一个覆盖板阵列。为了从捕获数据中估计雄性和雌性的丰度和存活率,我们拟合了一个带有数据增强的Jolly-Seber模型的状态空间公式。我们比较了有和没有捕获概率的个体异质性的模型公式。在3年的调查中,每年在漂篱处繁殖的数量从4476只到5282只不等。在未考虑捕获概率的个体异质性时,来自水生捕获数据的丰度估计值相对于漂流围栏计数被严重低估(低67-75%),而包括个体异质性导致的性别特异性丰度估计值与漂流围栏调查一致。水生诱捕的原始性别比例为男性偏倚(雄性比例为0.67 - 0.81,雌雄比例为2.0:1 - 4.2:1),而漂移围栏调查的计数和具有个体异质性的Jolly-Seber模型的估计表明,性别比例为女性偏倚(雄性比例为0.35 - 0.49,雌雄比例为0.54:1 - 0.95:1)。鸡蛋质量计数与丰度估计的相关性很弱,盖板调查发现不到1%的人口。我们的研究强调了漂移围栏调查作为估计繁殖个体丰度的参考的效用,以及在根据不完全检测的捕获数据估计池塘繁殖两栖动物丰度时考虑个体异质性在捕获概率中的重要性。我们的研究还警告说,潜在的丰度指标,如鸡蛋质量计数和覆盖板计数,应该根据可靠的丰度估计进行验证。
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
Journal of Wildlife Management
Journal of Wildlife Management 环境科学-动物学
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
13.00%
发文量
188
审稿时长
9-24 weeks
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.
×
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