Using camera traps to monitor cyclic vole populations

IF 3.9 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY
E. Kleiven, Pedro G. Nicolau, S. Sørbye, J. Aars, N. Yoccoz, R. Ims
{"title":"Using camera traps to monitor cyclic vole populations","authors":"E. Kleiven, Pedro G. Nicolau, S. Sørbye, J. Aars, N. Yoccoz, R. Ims","doi":"10.1002/rse2.317","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Camera traps have become popular labor‐efficient and non‐invasive tools to study animal populations. The use of camera trap methods has largely focused on large animals and/or animals with identifiable features, with less attention being paid to small mammals, including rodents. Here we investigate the suitability of camera‐trap‐based abundance indices to monitor population dynamics in two species of voles with key functions in boreal and Arctic ecosystems, known for their high‐amplitude population cycles. The targeted species—gray‐sided vole (Myodes rufocanus) and tundra vole (Microtus oeconomus)—differ with respect to habitat use and spatial‐social organization, which allow us to assess whether such species traits influence the accuracy of the abundance indices. For both species, multiple live‐trapping grids yielding capture‐mark‐recapture (CMR) abundance estimates were matched with single tunnel‐based camera traps (CT) continuously recording passing animals. The sampling encompassed 3 years with contrasting abundances and phases of the population cycles. We used linear regressions to calibrate CT indices, based on species‐specific photo counts over different time windows, as a function of CMR‐abundance estimates. We then performed inverse regression to predict CMR abundances from CT indices and assess prediction accuracy. We found that CT indices (for windows maximizing goodness‐of‐fit of the calibration models) predicted adequately the CMR‐based estimates for the gray‐sided vole, but performed poorly for the tundra vole. However, spatially aggregating CT indices over nearby camera traps enabled reliable abundance indices also for the tundra vole. Such species differences imply that the design of camera trap studies of rodent population dynamics should be adapted to the species in focus, and adequate spatial replication must be considered. Overall, tunnel‐based camera traps yield much more temporally resolved abundance metrics than alternative methods, with a large potential for revealing new aspects of the multi‐annual population cycles of voles and other small mammal species they interact with.","PeriodicalId":21132,"journal":{"name":"Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.317","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Camera traps have become popular labor‐efficient and non‐invasive tools to study animal populations. The use of camera trap methods has largely focused on large animals and/or animals with identifiable features, with less attention being paid to small mammals, including rodents. Here we investigate the suitability of camera‐trap‐based abundance indices to monitor population dynamics in two species of voles with key functions in boreal and Arctic ecosystems, known for their high‐amplitude population cycles. The targeted species—gray‐sided vole (Myodes rufocanus) and tundra vole (Microtus oeconomus)—differ with respect to habitat use and spatial‐social organization, which allow us to assess whether such species traits influence the accuracy of the abundance indices. For both species, multiple live‐trapping grids yielding capture‐mark‐recapture (CMR) abundance estimates were matched with single tunnel‐based camera traps (CT) continuously recording passing animals. The sampling encompassed 3 years with contrasting abundances and phases of the population cycles. We used linear regressions to calibrate CT indices, based on species‐specific photo counts over different time windows, as a function of CMR‐abundance estimates. We then performed inverse regression to predict CMR abundances from CT indices and assess prediction accuracy. We found that CT indices (for windows maximizing goodness‐of‐fit of the calibration models) predicted adequately the CMR‐based estimates for the gray‐sided vole, but performed poorly for the tundra vole. However, spatially aggregating CT indices over nearby camera traps enabled reliable abundance indices also for the tundra vole. Such species differences imply that the design of camera trap studies of rodent population dynamics should be adapted to the species in focus, and adequate spatial replication must be considered. Overall, tunnel‐based camera traps yield much more temporally resolved abundance metrics than alternative methods, with a large potential for revealing new aspects of the multi‐annual population cycles of voles and other small mammal species they interact with.

Abstract Image

使用相机捕捉器监测循环田鼠种群
相机捕捉器已成为研究动物种群的常用劳动效率和非侵入性工具。相机捕捉方法的使用主要集中在大型动物和/或具有可识别特征的动物身上,而对包括啮齿动物在内的小型哺乳动物的关注较少。在这里,我们研究了基于相机陷阱的丰度指数是否适合监测在北方和北极生态系统中具有关键功能的两种田鼠的种群动态,这两种田鼠以其高振幅的种群周期而闻名。目标物种——灰边田鼠(Myodes rufocanus)和苔原田鼠(Microtus oeconomus)——在栖息地使用和空间社会组织方面有所不同,这使我们能够评估这些物种特征是否影响丰度指数的准确性。对于这两个物种,产生捕获-标记-再捕获(CMR)丰度估计的多个活体捕捉网格与连续记录过往动物的单个基于隧道的相机捕捉器(CT)相匹配。抽样包括3 种群周期的丰度和阶段形成对比的年份。我们使用线性回归来校准CT指数,基于不同时间窗口的物种特异性照片计数,作为CMR丰度估计的函数。然后,我们进行逆回归,根据CT指数预测CMR丰度,并评估预测准确性。我们发现,CT指数(用于最大化校准模型拟合优度的窗口)充分预测了灰边田鼠基于CMR的估计,但对苔原田鼠表现不佳。然而,在附近的相机陷阱上空间聚集的CT指数也为苔原田鼠提供了可靠的丰度指数。这种物种差异意味着,啮齿动物种群动态的相机陷阱研究的设计应该适应关注的物种,并且必须考虑足够的空间复制。总的来说,与其他方法相比,基于隧道的相机陷阱产生了更多时间分辨的丰度指标,有很大的潜力揭示田鼠和其他与其互动的小型哺乳动物物种多年种群周期的新方面。
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
Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation
Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation Earth and Planetary Sciences-Computers in Earth Sciences
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
5.50%
发文量
69
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: emote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation provides a forum for rapid, peer-reviewed publication of novel, multidisciplinary research at the interface between remote sensing science and ecology and conservation. The journal prioritizes findings that advance the scientific basis of ecology and conservation, promoting the development of remote-sensing based methods relevant to the management of land use and biological systems at all levels, from populations and species to ecosystems and biomes. The journal defines remote sensing in its broadest sense, including data acquisition by hand-held and fixed ground-based sensors, such as camera traps and acoustic recorders, and sensors on airplanes and satellites. The intended journal’s audience includes ecologists, conservation scientists, policy makers, managers of terrestrial and aquatic systems, remote sensing scientists, and students. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation is a fully open access journal from Wiley and the Zoological Society of London. Remote sensing has enormous potential as to provide information on the state of, and pressures on, biological diversity and ecosystem services, at multiple spatial and temporal scales. This new publication provides a forum for multidisciplinary research in remote sensing science, ecological research and conservation science.
×
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