贡尼森草原犬的丰度估计值与活动洞穴数量的比较

IF 1.5 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 Environmental Science
Aaron N. Facka, Robert C. Lonsinger, Gary W. Roemer
{"title":"贡尼森草原犬的丰度估计值与活动洞穴数量的比较","authors":"Aaron N. Facka, Robert C. Lonsinger, Gary W. Roemer","doi":"10.1002/wsb.1513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reliable estimates of prairie dog (<i>Cynomys</i> spp.) population size and distribution are critical for assessing the status of prairie dogs and for selecting sites to reintroduce black-footed ferrets (<i>Mustela nigripes</i>). The density of active prairie dog burrows has commonly been used as an index of prairie dog abundance. Indices derived from active burrow counts were developed for black-tailed (<i>C. ludovicianus</i>) and white-tailed (<i>C. leucurus</i>) prairie dogs, but their efficacy has not been evaluated for all prairie dog species and studies affirming their validity with robust abundance estimators are few. We indexed or estimated the abundance of Gunnison's prairie dogs (<i>C. gunnisoni</i>) in the Aubrey Valley, Arizona, USA, in 2006 at 2 different time periods using 4 different methods—maximum above ground counts (MAGC), minimum number known alive (MNKA), capture-mark-recapture (CMR), and mark-resight—and compared these estimates to active burrow counts in 2005 and 2006. We found no positive relationship between active burrow counts and any abundance estimators. Mark-resight estimates of abundance were greater than the MNKA and were positively correlated with both the MNKA (<i>r</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.30) and CMR estimates (<i>r</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.49). Both CMR estimates and MAGC were typically below the MNKA and therefore biased low. Our results indicated that more rigorous estimation methods may be necessary to accurately estimate prairie dog abundance and assess habitat quality for ferret conservation.","PeriodicalId":23845,"journal":{"name":"Wildlife Society Bulletin","volume":"295 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Abundance estimates of Gunnison's prairie dogs compared to the number of active burrows\",\"authors\":\"Aaron N. Facka, Robert C. Lonsinger, Gary W. Roemer\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/wsb.1513\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Reliable estimates of prairie dog (<i>Cynomys</i> spp.) population size and distribution are critical for assessing the status of prairie dogs and for selecting sites to reintroduce black-footed ferrets (<i>Mustela nigripes</i>). The density of active prairie dog burrows has commonly been used as an index of prairie dog abundance. Indices derived from active burrow counts were developed for black-tailed (<i>C. ludovicianus</i>) and white-tailed (<i>C. leucurus</i>) prairie dogs, but their efficacy has not been evaluated for all prairie dog species and studies affirming their validity with robust abundance estimators are few. We indexed or estimated the abundance of Gunnison's prairie dogs (<i>C. gunnisoni</i>) in the Aubrey Valley, Arizona, USA, in 2006 at 2 different time periods using 4 different methods—maximum above ground counts (MAGC), minimum number known alive (MNKA), capture-mark-recapture (CMR), and mark-resight—and compared these estimates to active burrow counts in 2005 and 2006. We found no positive relationship between active burrow counts and any abundance estimators. Mark-resight estimates of abundance were greater than the MNKA and were positively correlated with both the MNKA (<i>r</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.30) and CMR estimates (<i>r</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.49). Both CMR estimates and MAGC were typically below the MNKA and therefore biased low. Our results indicated that more rigorous estimation methods may be necessary to accurately estimate prairie dog abundance and assess habitat quality for ferret conservation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23845,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wildlife Society Bulletin\",\"volume\":\"295 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wildlife Society Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1513\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Environmental Science\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wildlife Society Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1513","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Environmental Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对草原犬(Cynomys spp.)种群数量和分布的可靠估计对于评估草原犬的状况以及选择重新引入黑脚雪貂(Mustela nigripes)的地点至关重要。活跃草原犬洞穴的密度通常被用作草原犬丰度的指数。针对黑尾草原犬(C. ludovicianus)和白尾草草原犬(C. leucurus)开发了通过活动洞穴计数得出的指数,但尚未对其在所有草原犬物种中的有效性进行评估,而且很少有研究肯定其与可靠的丰度估计指标的有效性。2006 年,我们在美国亚利桑那州奥布里山谷(Aubrey Valley, Arizona)的两个不同时间段使用四种不同的方法--最大地面计数法(MAGC)、已知最小存活数量法(MNKA)、捕获-标记-再捕获法(CMR)和标记-观察法--对贡尼森草原犬(C. gunnisoni)的数量进行了指数化或估计,并将这些估计值与 2005 年和 2006 年的活动洞穴计数进行了比较。我们发现活动洞穴计数与任何丰度估计值之间都没有正相关关系。标记-观察估计丰度大于 MNKA,并且与 MNKA(r2 = 0.30)和 CMR 估计值(r2 = 0.49)呈正相关。CMR 估计值和 MAGC 通常都低于 MNKA,因此偏低。我们的结果表明,要准确估计草原犬的丰度并评估栖息地质量以保护雪貂,可能需要更严格的估计方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Abundance estimates of Gunnison's prairie dogs compared to the number of active burrows

Abundance estimates of Gunnison's prairie dogs compared to the number of active burrows
Reliable estimates of prairie dog (Cynomys spp.) population size and distribution are critical for assessing the status of prairie dogs and for selecting sites to reintroduce black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes). The density of active prairie dog burrows has commonly been used as an index of prairie dog abundance. Indices derived from active burrow counts were developed for black-tailed (C. ludovicianus) and white-tailed (C. leucurus) prairie dogs, but their efficacy has not been evaluated for all prairie dog species and studies affirming their validity with robust abundance estimators are few. We indexed or estimated the abundance of Gunnison's prairie dogs (C. gunnisoni) in the Aubrey Valley, Arizona, USA, in 2006 at 2 different time periods using 4 different methods—maximum above ground counts (MAGC), minimum number known alive (MNKA), capture-mark-recapture (CMR), and mark-resight—and compared these estimates to active burrow counts in 2005 and 2006. We found no positive relationship between active burrow counts and any abundance estimators. Mark-resight estimates of abundance were greater than the MNKA and were positively correlated with both the MNKA (r2 = 0.30) and CMR estimates (r2 = 0.49). Both CMR estimates and MAGC were typically below the MNKA and therefore biased low. Our results indicated that more rigorous estimation methods may be necessary to accurately estimate prairie dog abundance and assess habitat quality for ferret conservation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Wildlife Society Bulletin
Wildlife Society Bulletin BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
13.30%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Wildlife Society Bulletin is a journal for wildlife practitioners that effectively integrates cutting edge science with management and conservation, and also covers important policy issues, particularly those that focus on the integration of science and policy. Wildlife Society Bulletin includes articles on contemporary wildlife management and conservation, education, administration, law enforcement, and review articles on the philosophy and history of wildlife management and conservation. This includes: Reports on practices designed to achieve wildlife management or conservation goals. Presentation of new techniques or evaluation of techniques for studying or managing wildlife. Retrospective analyses of wildlife management and conservation programs, including the reasons for success or failure. Analyses or reports of wildlife policies, regulations, education, administration, law enforcement. Review articles on the philosophy and history of wildlife management and conservation. as well as other pertinent topics that are deemed more appropriate for the Wildlife Society Bulletin than for The Journal of Wildlife Management. Book reviews that focus on applied research, policy or wildlife management and conservation.
×
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