用相机陷阱估计浣熊密度,用于浣熊狂犬病管理

IF 1.9 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ECOLOGY
Amy J. Davis, Wesley C. Dixon, Richard B. Chipman, Amy T. Gilbert, Jacob E. Hill, James C. Beasley, Olin E. Rhodes Jr., Guha Dharmarajan
{"title":"用相机陷阱估计浣熊密度,用于浣熊狂犬病管理","authors":"Amy J. Davis,&nbsp;Wesley C. Dixon,&nbsp;Richard B. Chipman,&nbsp;Amy T. Gilbert,&nbsp;Jacob E. Hill,&nbsp;James C. Beasley,&nbsp;Olin E. Rhodes Jr.,&nbsp;Guha Dharmarajan","doi":"10.1002/jwmg.22701","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Density estimation for unmarked animals is particularly challenging, yet density estimates are often necessary for effective wildlife management. Raccoons (<i>Procyon lotor</i>) are the primary terrestrial wildlife reservoir for Lyssavirus rabies within the United States. The raccoon rabies variant (RRVV) is actively managed at landscape scales using oral rabies vaccination (ORV) within the eastern United States. To effectively manage RRVV, it is important to know the density of raccoons to appropriately scale the density of ORV baits distributed on the landscape. We compared methods to estimate raccoon densities from camera-trap data versus more intensive capture-mark-recapture (CMR) estimates across 2 land cover types (upland pine and bottomland hardwood) in the southeastern United States during 2019 and 2020. We evaluated the effect of alternative camera configurations and durations of camera trapping on density estimates and used an N-mixture model to estimate raccoon densities, including covariates on abundance and detection. We further compared different methods of scaling camera-based counts, with the maximum number of raccoons seen on any given image within a day best explaining density. Camera-trap density estimates were moderately correlated with CMR estimates (<i>r</i> = 0.56). However, densities from camera-trap data were more reliable when classifying category of density as an index used to inform management (83% correct when compared to CMR estimates), although the densities in our study fell into the 2 lowest density classes only. Using more cameras reduced bias and uncertainty around density estimates; however, if ≤6 camera traps were used at a site, a line transect approach proved less biased than a grid design. Camera trapping should be conducted for at least 3 weeks for more accurate estimates of raccoon population density in our study area (&lt;5% bias). We show that camera-trap data can be used to assign raccoon densities to management-relevant density index bins, but more studies are needed to ensure reliability across a greater range of environmental conditions and raccoon densities.</p>","PeriodicalId":17504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Management","volume":"89 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jwmg.22701","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Raccoon density estimation from camera traps for raccoon rabies management\",\"authors\":\"Amy J. Davis,&nbsp;Wesley C. Dixon,&nbsp;Richard B. Chipman,&nbsp;Amy T. Gilbert,&nbsp;Jacob E. Hill,&nbsp;James C. Beasley,&nbsp;Olin E. Rhodes Jr.,&nbsp;Guha Dharmarajan\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jwmg.22701\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Density estimation for unmarked animals is particularly challenging, yet density estimates are often necessary for effective wildlife management. Raccoons (<i>Procyon lotor</i>) are the primary terrestrial wildlife reservoir for Lyssavirus rabies within the United States. The raccoon rabies variant (RRVV) is actively managed at landscape scales using oral rabies vaccination (ORV) within the eastern United States. To effectively manage RRVV, it is important to know the density of raccoons to appropriately scale the density of ORV baits distributed on the landscape. We compared methods to estimate raccoon densities from camera-trap data versus more intensive capture-mark-recapture (CMR) estimates across 2 land cover types (upland pine and bottomland hardwood) in the southeastern United States during 2019 and 2020. We evaluated the effect of alternative camera configurations and durations of camera trapping on density estimates and used an N-mixture model to estimate raccoon densities, including covariates on abundance and detection. We further compared different methods of scaling camera-based counts, with the maximum number of raccoons seen on any given image within a day best explaining density. Camera-trap density estimates were moderately correlated with CMR estimates (<i>r</i> = 0.56). However, densities from camera-trap data were more reliable when classifying category of density as an index used to inform management (83% correct when compared to CMR estimates), although the densities in our study fell into the 2 lowest density classes only. Using more cameras reduced bias and uncertainty around density estimates; however, if ≤6 camera traps were used at a site, a line transect approach proved less biased than a grid design. Camera trapping should be conducted for at least 3 weeks for more accurate estimates of raccoon population density in our study area (&lt;5% bias). We show that camera-trap data can be used to assign raccoon densities to management-relevant density index bins, but more studies are needed to ensure reliability across a greater range of environmental conditions and raccoon densities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17504,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Wildlife Management\",\"volume\":\"89 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jwmg.22701\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Wildlife Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.22701\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Wildlife Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.22701","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对未标记动物的密度估计尤其具有挑战性,然而密度估计对于有效的野生动物管理通常是必要的。浣熊是美国境内狂犬病病毒的主要陆地野生动物宿主。在美国东部,通过口服狂犬病疫苗(ORV)在景观尺度上积极管理浣熊狂犬病变种(RRVV)。为了有效地管理RRVV,重要的是了解浣熊的密度,以适当地缩放在景观上分布的ORV诱饵的密度。我们比较了2019年和2020年期间美国东南部两种土地覆盖类型(高地松木和洼地硬木)的相机陷阱数据估计浣熊密度的方法与更密集的捕获-标记-再捕获(CMR)估计方法。我们评估了不同摄像机配置和摄像机捕获时间对密度估计的影响,并使用n -混合模型估计浣熊密度,包括丰度和检测的协变量。我们进一步比较了不同的基于相机计数的缩放方法,在一天内任何给定图像上看到的最大浣熊数量最能解释密度。相机陷阱密度估计值与CMR估计值存在中度相关(r = 0.56)。然而,当将密度分类作为用于通知管理的指标时,来自摄像机陷阱数据的密度更可靠(与CMR估计相比,准确率为83%),尽管我们研究中的密度仅属于2个最低密度类别。使用更多的相机减少了密度估计的偏差和不确定性;然而,如果在一个地点使用了≤6个相机陷阱,则证明样线方法比网格设计的偏差更小。摄像机诱捕应进行至少3周,以便更准确地估计我们研究区域的浣熊种群密度(<;5%偏差)。我们表明,摄像机陷阱数据可用于将浣熊密度分配到与管理相关的密度指数箱,但需要更多的研究来确保在更大范围的环境条件和浣熊密度下的可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Raccoon density estimation from camera traps for raccoon rabies management

Raccoon density estimation from camera traps for raccoon rabies management

Density estimation for unmarked animals is particularly challenging, yet density estimates are often necessary for effective wildlife management. Raccoons (Procyon lotor) are the primary terrestrial wildlife reservoir for Lyssavirus rabies within the United States. The raccoon rabies variant (RRVV) is actively managed at landscape scales using oral rabies vaccination (ORV) within the eastern United States. To effectively manage RRVV, it is important to know the density of raccoons to appropriately scale the density of ORV baits distributed on the landscape. We compared methods to estimate raccoon densities from camera-trap data versus more intensive capture-mark-recapture (CMR) estimates across 2 land cover types (upland pine and bottomland hardwood) in the southeastern United States during 2019 and 2020. We evaluated the effect of alternative camera configurations and durations of camera trapping on density estimates and used an N-mixture model to estimate raccoon densities, including covariates on abundance and detection. We further compared different methods of scaling camera-based counts, with the maximum number of raccoons seen on any given image within a day best explaining density. Camera-trap density estimates were moderately correlated with CMR estimates (r = 0.56). However, densities from camera-trap data were more reliable when classifying category of density as an index used to inform management (83% correct when compared to CMR estimates), although the densities in our study fell into the 2 lowest density classes only. Using more cameras reduced bias and uncertainty around density estimates; however, if ≤6 camera traps were used at a site, a line transect approach proved less biased than a grid design. Camera trapping should be conducted for at least 3 weeks for more accurate estimates of raccoon population density in our study area (<5% bias). We show that camera-trap data can be used to assign raccoon densities to management-relevant density index bins, but more studies are needed to ensure reliability across a greater range of environmental conditions and raccoon densities.

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
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信