What Is The Fastest Animal What Two Things Are Involved With Density

• Loading metrics

Open up Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Commodity

Fauna Density and Track Counts: Agreement the Nature of Observations Based on Brute Movements

• Rick Pelletier

Fauna Density and Track Counts: Understanding the Nature of Observations Based on Creature Movements

• Derek Keeping,
• Rick Pelletier

x

• Published: May 28, 2014
• https://doi.org/x.1371/journal.pone.0096598

Figures

Abstract

Counting animals to guess their population sizes is often essential for their management and conservation. Since practitioners frequently rely on indirect observations of animals, it is important to better sympathise the relationship between such indirect indices and creature abundance. The Formozov-Malyshev-Pereleshin (FMP) formula provides a theoretical foundation for understanding the human relationship between animal rail counts and the truthful density of species. Although this analytical method potentially has universal applicability wherever animals are readily detectable by their tracks, it has long been unique to Russia and remains widely underappreciated. In this paper, nosotros provide a test of the FMP formula by isolating the influence of animal travel path tortuosity (i.e., convolutedness) on rails counts. Nosotros employed simulations using virtual and empirical data, in addition to a field test comparing FMP estimates with independent estimates from line transect distance sampling. Nosotros verify that track counts (total intersections between animals and transects) are determined entirely by density and daily movement distances. Hence, the FMP estimator is theoretically robust against potential biases from specific shapes or patterns of beast movement paths if transects are randomly situated with respect to those movements (i.east., the transects do non influence animals' movements). However, detectability (the detection probability of private animals) is not determined simply past daily travel altitude but also past tortuosity, so ensuring that all intersections with transects are counted regardless of the number of individual animals that made them becomes critical for an accurate density judge. Additionally, although tortuosity has no begetting on mean track encounter rates, information technology does touch encounter rate variance and therefore estimate precision. We discuss how these fundamental principles made explicit past the FMP formula have widespread implications for methods of assessing animal abundance that rely on indirect observations.

Citation: Keeping D, Pelletier R (2014) Animal Density and Rails Counts: Understanding the Nature of Observations Based on Animal Movements. PLoS ONE 9(5): e96598. https://doi.org/x.1371/journal.pone.0096598

Editor: Alfred L. Roca, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Us of America

Received: October 21, 2013; Accepted: Apr 9, 2014; Published: May 28, 2014

Copyright: © 2014 Keeping, Pelletier. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Artistic Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: This work was supported by Comanis Foundation, Kanabo Conservation Link, Natural Sciences and Engineering Inquiry Council of Canada, Safari Club International Foundation and Conservation Strength. The funders had no function in study design, data collection and analysis, conclusion to publish, or training of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors accept declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Estimating creature numbers is often a basic requirement for determining the status of species. Nonetheless, this task is deceptively simple and no single all-time arroyo exists; techniques that work well in some situations are useless in others [i]. Many terrestrial mammals are nocturnal, cryptic in appearance, and generally good at avoiding being seen, which limits well-adult methods of direct ascertainment, including distance sampling [2]–[5]. These challenges go out indirect ascertainment, for instance via fauna tracks or remote photography, as often the only realistic choice.

In many parts of the world, conservationists rely on animal rails surveys equally an indispensable tool. Animal runway surveys are used in a range of efforts, such as large-scale biodiversity monitoring in northern Europe [6], [7], North America [viii], and Australia [9], habitat and land utilise touch on assessments [10]–[sixteen], planning sustainable harvest of ungulates and furbearers [17]–[23], managing invasive species [24]–[27], and monitoring endangered populations such as black rhinoceros Diceros bicornis [28], tigers Panthera tigris [29], [30], Florida panther Puma concolor [31], wolverine Gulo gulo [32], [33], and polar bears Ursus maritimus [34]. Where substrates are suitable, practitioners proceed to employ rail surveys because they are uncomplicated, practical, inexpensive, and readily produce detections for all terrestrial animals including those otherwise difficult to detect. Ironically, science may have origins in tracking. Liebenberg [35] notes that a fully mod human brain evolved when all humans were hunter-gatherers and argues that efficient tracking techniques necessary for successful acquisition of prey nonetheless practiced by contemporary hunter-gatherers were the origin of creative hypothetico-deductive thought processes now made explicit by mod science.

In spite of this widespread reliance on tracks and historical perspective, theoretical developments to accelerate our understanding of the human relationship betwixt tracks and their makers' true population density accept generally been sidelined in favour of direct sightings or technologically advanced approaches to wild animals science. While there take been some creative approaches to estimating density from rail counts [36], [37], such counts are most often relegated to simple indices of relative affluence (e.g., [38]–[42]). Sometimes, these indices are calibrated to true density through double sampling [43]–[47]. In both cases, the relationship between the index and the population density is causeless to be linear, monotonic, and stable. It is this failure to business relationship for changing detection probabilities that has prompted criticisms on the employ of such indices [48], [49], despite urgent practical reasons for conservationists defending their use [50], [51]. Wild fauna management and conservation practitioners effectually the world would do good from a ameliorate understanding of the mechanistic footing linking indirect observations, such as track counts, to animal abundance.

The Formozov-Malyshev-Pereleshin (FMP) formula is an analytical method for converting track counts to population density. This formula was first adult over 80 years ago to guess game numbers in the snowy regions of Russia. The formula'south conceptual footing and derivation is described in [52]. In brusque, information technology is derived from the probabilistic intersection of lines of specified lengths within a defined surface area and therefore describes the relationship of both transect length and animal day range (lines) to runway counts (intersections) and animal density. The formula has the following form: where is the full number of rail crossings over 1 24-hour period, is the total transect length, and is the hateful daily travel distance for all animals in the study surface area.

Since its contempo introduction to the English scientific literature [52], the FMP formula has prompted a closer look at ideal gas models and the development of a parallel approach to estimate density using camera trapping rates [53]. Nonetheless, despite widespread applicability, the FMP formula still remains underappreciated and is rarely practical exterior of Russia. Previous work has addressed the formula's theoretical basis [52], just perhaps the simplicity of the derived human relationship leaves lingering doubts regarding the spatial element of animal movement influencing detectability and encounter rates. Concerns over the non-randomness of animal movements seem to persist (see [54]), although these concerns have been addressed to some extent in recent reviews of ideal gas models [55], [56]. Most work has been based on simulations and there have been few field tests to address doubts regarding the not-random movements of existent animals, their non-random dispersions, and their ofttimes non-independent movements (but encounter [53]).

In this newspaper, we separate animal movements into their 24-hour interval range and tortuosity components to examine the FMP formula. Nosotros use three levels that progressively decrease randomness and increase the realism of movements and space utilise (Table 1). If the FMP formula is fundamentally valid, specific shapes of animal movement paths should be irrelevant, i.e., a population of animals displaying linear movements and another population of equivalent density and twenty-four hours ranges merely displaying convoluted movements would evidence no difference in their hateful number of rails crossings and would therefore be estimated with equal accuracy. We synthetic these scenarios using virtual animal populations false to exhibit the desired parameters over the range of extremes expected to exist encountered in existent systems. We then examined two species that showed qualitative and quantifiable differences in the spatial patterns of their daily movements. Using authentic tracings of their actual daily travel paths, we faux their populations with a random dispersion and tested how accurately the FMP formula could estimate their numbers. This same technique has also been employed previously with iii species of deer and wild boar [52], [57]. Finally, there is an expressed need to compare FMP estimates of real populations with independent density estimates [52]. Nosotros make this comparison using ii sympatric antelope populations since these animals are readily visible and amenable to distance sampling with line transects. Although nosotros use examples from a specific context by necessity, our goal is broad and these explorations reveal a more general understanding of how animal movement parameters influence their detection. While some findings are not strictly novel, our purpose is to brand these findings relevant and accelerate the field of tracking to benefit conservation.

Methods

Study Area

Information collection occurred in the KD1 Wildlife Management Expanse directly north of and next to the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park in southwestern Republic of botswana. The Government of Republic of botswana via the Ministry building of Environment, Wild fauna and Tourism and Department of Wild fauna and National Parks granted approvals and permits (numbers EWT 8/36/4 XII (35), WP/RES/15/two/2 XXII (87)) to deport the study within this publically owned, partially protected expanse. Since the field sampling techniques were non-invasive, ethics blessing was not required. An area within 30 km of the unfenced park boundary was selected on the basis of its habitat uniformity and its high densities of the target antelope species. Human impacts in this expanse are minimal since the nearest settlement is a subsistence-pastoral community lxx km away. The land is relatively open semiarid savanna overlying a consistent sandy substrate. The plant customs coincides with the Schmidtia kalahariensis blazon [58]; the dominant species are Acacia luederitzii, Acacia erioloba, Grewia flava, and Southward. kalahariensis. Visibility is expert in the open up savanna and tracking conditions are fantabulous. We collaborated with local tracking experts and horsemen from the next remote area settlement of Zutshwa to bear the field study.

Runway Counts

A single 10 km transect was created to bisect the unbounded written report surface area. Rails crossings were counted forth this transect over six consecutive 24-hour periods by observers on specialised seats mounted to the front of a vehicle travelling at 6–8 km h⁻¹. 1 expert local tracker and DK conducted all of the observations. No effort was fabricated to eliminate subsequent crossings of the same individual animal. Surveys began at approximately the same fourth dimension each morning (08∶00 h) and progressed at a similar rate, while concurrently a heavy steel beam was dragged behind the vehicle, which effectively obliterated tracks. This technique ensured a precise 24-hour menstruation for track accumulation.

Diel Brute Motion

Nosotros selected two ungulate species thought to exhibit general differences in both spatial dispersion and the pattern of their travel paths: gemsbok Oryx gazella gazella and steenbok Raphicerus campestris. We wanted authentic measures of these species' daily travel distances and spatial tracings of their daily travel paths at high resolution.

We followed the tracks of individual animals to retrace the path that they walked. GPS data-loggers (Columbus V-900, Victory Technology, Fujian, China) programmed to accept fixes at 1 s intervals captured fine-ruler tracings of each brute's move. Steenbok were tracked on pes and gemsbok were traced from horseback. Unlike ecologies dictated different approaches to obtaining diel tracings.

Steenbok pairs defend small-scale territories (0.vi km²; [59]), which precludes forward-tracing their movements inside a diel period because the presence of trackers invariably influences those movements. Instead, we opportunistically used rainfall events that reset the track record. When rainfall concluded during the day, we sighted steenbok 24 h later. This was possible considering steenbok are abundant and like shooting fish in a barrel to come across. From sighting, we dorsum-tracked the animal to the point where the tracks became marked past raindrops.

For gemsbok, we spotted animals in the mid-morning. The next day, early in the morning, the animal was forward-tracked from the signal of sighting. The tracing was terminated when the animate being was re-sighted or when the fauna patently fled the approaching horsemen. In some instances, tracings were completed after 24 h had elapsed. Excess altitude was subtracted from the travel record according to the fraction of the 24-hr period that had elapsed.

Nosotros used a simple metric of tortuosity, calculated equally a ratio of the total daily travel distance divided by the distance between the start and stop locations, to quantify differences in spatial patterns of steenbok and gemsbok travel paths.

Line Transects

Since both steenbok and gemsbok are abundant enough to be readily visible, we used altitude sampling with line transects to independently guess density. We sampled along three parallel, equally spaced 10 km transects, each separated by 3 km. The eye transect was the aforementioned every bit that used for the track counts. Transects were created merely by driving a vehicle off-route and were sampled several times during daylight hours at a speed of 20–30 km h⁻¹. Animals were spotted past the driver and by two observers positioned on the tracker seats. When animals were spotted, their group size was adamant and the vehicle was stopped when the line of sight to the animal(due south) was at an angle perpendicular to the transect. The altitude between the animal(s) and the transect was determined with a light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation rangefinder. Occasionally, when animals fled before the vehicle could reach the perpendicular location, a tracker would walk to the place where the brute(s) was standing so that an accurate reading could be obtained with the rangefinder. Densities with 95% bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using conventional distance sampling [60] with Altitude 6 software [61]. We selected detection probability functions and adjustments based on Akaike Information Criterion and graphical best fits to the sighting information.

Simulations

We simulated virtual animal populations exhibiting incremental levels of travel path tortuosity ( ), across combinations of density ( ) and day range ( ) expected to guess the range in variation of virtually terrestrial species for which tracking is applicable.

We began with a conceptual area of 2500 kmⁱⁱ (50×50 kmⁱⁱ). For each scenario of fauna , , and , i direct-line transect 10 km in length was imported into the area with a random starting location and orientation. And so, using an appropriate density, "animals" were randomly imported as points from which they moved in random directions to the specified and , as described beneath. This process was repeated 1200 times, resulting in a 12000 km survey endeavor for each permutation of , , and . We imitation past beginning with a population exhibiting directly-line movements, then incrementally increased the number of "turns" the animals made by breaking the movement paths at random distances and assigning a random turn angle at each vertex. This approach simulates an uncorrelated or pure random walk. Incremental tortuosity was denoted by  = 0 (straight lines),  = ane (single plow),  = two (two turns)… 10, 20, 30, 40, fifty. Within each level, the tortuosity of private "animal" paths varied widely considering the turn angles were random (between 0 and 2π); nevertheless, the average tortuosity for the population increased in proportion with the full number of turns. The levels of movement length were  = 0.3, three, 10, 30 km and the levels of density were  = 0.0004 (i creature), 0.0002, 0.004, 0.002 0.04, 0.02, 0.four, 2, and iv km⁻². Intersections between both every "animal" travel path and between each path segment and the transect were summed for each transect.

To increment the spatial realism of the simulation, virtual populations were unbounded by the conceptual surface area. Animals were dispersed randomly at a specified density inside the area, only as throughout a larger buffer area. The animals were so permitted to motion without regard to boundaries. Transect intersections included animals originating inside and outside the conceptual area. For each scenario, an equal number of animals were only as likely to motility from inside the expanse to outside the surface area and vice versa. Structuring the simulation in this manner avoided edge effects and about closely approximated reality when applying a runway transect survey to an unenclosed population.

In addition to virtual populations, nosotros simulated populations of both antelope species using their existent travel paths. Empirical paths were pulled randomly with replacement from the available information gear up and imported into the conceptual survey and buffer area with random starting points and orientations until the desired number of animals was reached for a range of densities from 0.02–4 km⁻ⁱⁱ. A 10 km transect was then imported with a random starting bespeak and orientation, over which the transect intersections were enumerated. This process was repeated 500 times. Notably, the locations and orientations of both the travel paths and transects were randomized over each iteration. The same consideration for movement in and out of the study surface area was as well applied.

Results

Simulated Animal Movements

The key linear relationships defined by the FMP formula were verified by the simulation results. For instance, a doubling of results in a doubling of / , which corroborates previous findings [57]. Similarly, information technology was clear that for a abiding value of , a doubling in results in a doubling of / .

When and were held abiding, the mean number of intersections per transect did non change over levels of , from straight-line movements to highly tortuous random walks. A subset of outputs from several combinations reveals this consistency (left panels in Fig. 1). Considering the hateful encounter rates did non modify, the FMP formula estimated densities accurately regardless of the shape taken by the travel paths. At the maximum number of transect replicates (1200), the mean estimates from all scenario combinations deviated by a maximum of 2% from the truthful imitation densities.

Effigy 1. Sample output from three combinations of simulated daily travel paths and densities.

Box plots with outliers are shown; each information signal represents the numbers of intersections per transect (500 iterations) across five arbitrary levels of travel path tortuosity.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096598.g001

Although tortuosity had no effect on the hateful encounter rates and the subsequent accuracy of the FMP interpretation, detectability was affected. Detection probabilities, reflected by the number of individual animals that intersected transects, declined with increasing tortuosity (correct panels in Fig. 1). Imitation animal movement paths originating from the aforementioned point (Fig. 2) help to visualise the failing detectability that resulted in the pattern in Fig. 1 (correct panels). With increasing tortuosity, the average deportation covered by the paths decreased, so that paths at t = 8 covered simply over one-half of the Euclidean altitude as t = 0. Transects that sampled populations exhibiting the most tortuous paths (t = 50) counted fewer than 30% of the individual animals that were counted when those populations exhibited straight-line movements (t = 0). The results indicated that detectability is determined past both day range and tortuosity. This effect could only be established via simulations because in a majority of situations information technology is impractical and impossible to determine with certainty if tracks belong to the same or different private animals.

Effigy two. Displacement of simulated fauna travel paths over levels of tortuosity.

Fifty travel paths of equal length originate from a common centroid for each level of tortuosity (numerals indicate the number of random plough angles).

https://doi.org/ten.1371/periodical.pone.0096598.g002

A further consequence of the interaction of day range and tortuosity is dubiety in the resulting density estimates. The sample variance increased when the travel paths became shorter and more convoluted. The effect is apparent over a wide range of expected daily movements for terrestrial species (Fig. three). Species with smaller bodies are more than likely to occupy the low cease of day range (0.3 km); examples include tortoises, some weasels, mongooses, primates, and probable many rodents [63]–[65]. At the other extreme, spotted Crocuta crocuta and brown hyaenas Hyaena brunnea in the Kalahari take been recorded moving on average 26.five and 31.ane km per night, respectively [66]. However, the majority of terrestrial species for which track counts are applicable are likely to have daily ranges somewhere in between these values (see [64], [65]). When the survey effort reached 250 km (1 km sampled for every ten km⁻²), the 95% CIs ranged at the extremes from 54–154% of the true density (panel d of Fig. three) to 97–102% of the truthful density (panel c of Fig. iii). However, these results likely overestimate the precision that can be achieved in real populations because the virtual animals in the simulations were dispersed randomly, the group size was therefore one animal, and did not vary. Therefore, the outputs in Fig. 3 primarily illustrate the general effect of solar day range and tortuosity on precision.

Effigy 3. Effect of daily travel distance (column panels) and path tortuosity (row panels) on FMP estimate precision.

Hateful densities and 95% CIs are shown from applying the FMP formula to 10 km transects sampling virtual populations at ii km⁻ⁱⁱ. Dotted lines indicate the accuracy of mean density estimates at 1200 replicates, which vary within 2% of the true density. Note that both twenty-four hour period range and tortuosity influenced doable precision.

https://doi.org/x.1371/journal.pone.0096598.g003

Simulation Using Empirical Travel Paths

We traced 17 gemsbok and six steenbok diel travel paths. Despite trunk sizes that differ by over an order of magnitude, the ii species' daily movement distances did not differ considerably; gemsbok travelled 5.65 (coefficient of variation 0.42) km on average and steenbok travelled 4.20 (0.34) km on average. However, the patterns of their travel paths were markedly different. Gemsbok had more than linear movements, roofing larger areas in the landscape. This attribute was reflected in a tortuosity metric of four.22 (0.62). Steenbok, bars to relatively minor territories, displayed much more tortuous movement patterns, with a tortuosity metric of 10.86 (0.31).

When empirical movements were dispersed randomly in the simulation infinite, gemsbok had higher detectability than steenbok by virtue of the differences in the shapes of their travel paths and resultant space use (Fig. 4). Considering twenty-four hour period ranges that differed by only 34.5%, at equivalent densities, 3.3 times more individual gemsbok were detected than steenbok per transect on average. However, if a gemsbok was detected, it was likely to intersect a transect 2.2 times on average. In dissimilarity, if a steenbok was detected, it was likely to intersect a transect 5.4 times on average.

Figure iv. Empirical daily movements dispersed randomly in simulation infinite.

Image capture (i∶l 000) shows a single iteration of simulation runs at 2 km⁻² density for (A) gemsbok and (B) steenbok. Approximately one-half of the randomly oriented transect (black) appears diagonally, underlying travel paths (grayness). Notation that both gemsbok and steenbok accept similar daily travel distances just display dissimilar tortuosity in their movements, resulting in different spatial use.

https://doi.org/10.1371/periodical.pone.0096598.g004

Over the range of simulated densities, when transects were replicated 500 times, the FMP formula returned mean estimates within 5% of their true value, which is farther evidence that the estimator is unbiased by the specific shapes of brute move paths. For example, when the population density was 2 km⁻², the number of gemsbok was estimated to exist 1.97 km⁻ⁱⁱ and the number of steenbok was estimated to be ii.03 km⁻² (Fig. 5). The accurateness of these hateful estimates approached the true densities once the cumulative survey effort reached about 250 km or a sample penetration [44] of 1 km of transect per 10 km² of survey area. At this effort, CIs around point estimates were 73% of the hateful density for gemsbok and 54% of the mean density for steenbok. This precision was poorer than that of deer from Stephens et al. [52] due to less precise estimates of arising from smaller sample sizes. The effect of variation in on the precision of the density estimates is illustrated by comparison with virtual populations where the day range was constant (encounter the spread of 95% CIs in Fig. 3 versus Fig. 5).

Figure 5. Estimates from fake densities (2 km⁻²) using empirical movements of (A) gemsbok and (B) steenbok.

FMP point estimates of density from a random cumulative increase in survey effort (10 km transects) are displayed along with 95% CIs.

https://doi.org/ten.1371/journal.pone.0096598.g005

Real Population Comparison

Both antelope species had similar encounter rates along the runway transect: gemsbok with 8.59 intersections km⁻¹ 24 h⁻¹ on boilerplate and steenbok with 9.58 intersections km⁻ⁱ 24 h⁻¹. Combining these data with their respective day ranges in the FMP formula returned density estimates for gemsbok (ii.39 km⁻ⁱⁱ; 95% CI: ane.57–3.23 km⁻ⁱⁱ), and steenbok (3.33 km⁻²; CI: ii.71–4.17 km⁻²). Line transects (394 km) revealed 74 gemsbok observations (270 individuals) and 66 steenbok observations (72 individuals). Conventional distance sampling analyses and bootstrap CIs produced estimates for gemsbok (ii.57 km⁻²; CI: i.43–iv.62 km⁻ⁱⁱ), and steenbok (iii.7 km⁻ⁱⁱ; CI: 2.47–5.55 km⁻²). Despite small-scale sample sizes and unknown true densities, the two independent approaches returned density estimates that were closely matched (Fig. 6). Bold that the distance-based estimates are accurate, this express comparison is suggestive that the FMP figurer was too accurate and robust to non-independent creature motion patterns and not-random dispersion.

Rails-based estimates were more precise than distance-based estimates (Fig. vi). Transects were merely x km in length, and so straight observations of animals per transect were limited and several line transects had zero counts for each target species. As a result, information technology was necessary to sample ii additional line transects in parallel to the middle transect to obtain a minimum number of sightings for estimating detection functions. In contrast, track counts captured close to 100 observations per transect. There was college variance in the numbers of observations on dissimilar line transects (CVs of 0.96 and 0.84) compared with track transects (CVs of 0.42 and 0.11) for gemsbok and steenbok, respectively, which was reflected in the wider CIs shown by the distance-based estimates compared with the FMP estimates.

Give-and-take

When it is suggested that counts of animal tracks tin can be used to gauge population density a remarkably immediate and consistent question from both biologists and laymen is "only how practice you lot avert over-counting the aforementioned individual animals?" This effect seems intuitively problematic. Repeated counting of individual animals' tracks along a transect or between spatial replicates during a survey is frequently viewed as a problem. Some efforts take attempted to reduce the charge per unit of re-counting individual animals by using capricious exclusion distances between sets of tracks [67], [68] or by separating transects sufficiently in space so that the probability of a unmarried animal being recorded on more than i line is minimized [39], [25], [69], [lxx]. Reliably distinguishing individuals based on their tracks is much more than difficult and mayhap possible among a few species such as large cats [71]–[74], rhinos [75], tapirs [76], and potentially elephants [77]. All the same, exceptional trackers or detailed measurements and sophisticated analyses are required. In contrast, counting every track intersection is repeatable and simpler than attempting to separate individual animals, but rarely implemented because such counts are considered to exist hard to translate [78]. At the least, rails surveyors typically brand some attempt to eliminate obvious re-crossings that are visually continued [52], [79]. Decisions must be made at the first of every program whether to discount re-crossings of same individual animals, simply tape presence over some spatial dimension, or enumerate each and every rails. The literature reflects little agreement on an optimal approach.

If density estimates are sought, the FMP formula suggests that re-counting the same individual animals is not a problem and that it is in fact desirable to count the aforementioned individuals if they re-cross transects within the same 24-hour menses, equally many times every bit they do. Geometry dictates a balance between the number of intersections and the length of line segments, regardless of the shapes of the lines. The inference is but that individuals with more than tortuous movements are detected less merely, when encountered, those individuals are generally counted a larger number of times by virtue of the convoluted pattern of their motility. Detectability is influenced by tortuosity; the total number of intersections is not. The FMP formula describes the relationship between counts and true density if correct track counting rules are applied. A strict definition of detectability includes the probability that tracks are observed after they intersect a transect. We await this probability to approach 1 in the Kalahari, where tracks are hands visible and tin can be verified by more than one expert observer. Still, surveyors in dissimilar parts of the world surely have broad variation in tracking skill level (come across [71], [80]) and tracker proficiency should be addressed more than oftentimes [81]. Notwithstanding, our consideration of detectability here has been express to the more primal probability of intersection between animals and transects. This detection probability remains an imprecise concept, determined by the interaction of day range and path tortuosity. Among two populations with equal movement rates, we have shown that those with more tortuous movements have lower detectability. Likewise, if two animals take equally tortuous movements, the animal with a longer day range will have college probability of being detected. The interaction of these two travel path parameters can peradventure be conceptualised every bit the displacement that animals encompass during their daily patterns of movement, i.eastward., those individuals that cover larger distances in Euclidean terms have greater detectability.

Implications for Occupancy

Track surveys have often been applied to model the fraction of sampling units in a landscape where a target species is nowadays (occupancy) in order to monitor distributional changes [68], but besides every bit a surrogate for abundance to monitor trends in population sizes [82]–[84]. Animals have high detection probabilities by their tracks because such indirect observations are fourth dimension integrated and reflect beast presence over an area typically much greater than the infinite within which animals can be observed direct at a particular moment. For case, 95% of gemsbok and steenbok sightings along line transects in the present report occurred within 355 and 120 m, respectively. Track counts certainly captured animals that had travelled from, or to, a substantial distance across which direct sightings are possible. This factor contributed greatly to track observations in the 8–x km⁻¹ range, while some line transects failed to detect either species.

Minimizing the imperfect detection of species (false absences) has get a key concern of occupancy studies [85]–[87]. Although the FMP formula is unaffected by the vagaries of specific spatial patterns of fauna movements, applications utilising presence-absence data from indirect sign are vulnerable to biases emerging from changing animate being detectability. For example, when empirical move paths were imported randomly to a density of 0.04 km⁻² (100 animals within the report surface area), a survey attempt of 100 km (10 transects) had a >99.nine% probability of detecting gemsbok presence, simply an 86% probability of detecting steenbok presence in the area. When 500 transects were applied to these populations in a single survey, 51% of individual transects detected gemsbok, while the presence of steenbok was recorded on only 18.2% of transects. Differences in detectability between these two species due to tortuosity can exist seen in Fig. iv. The tortuosity of animal motion paths may fluctuate widely within species and individuals for any number of reasons that are difficult to predict [88]. Since detection probabilities of animals by their tracks are not constant, even over short periods (day to mean solar day), an appropriate occupancy design would crave repeated sampling and assume no unmodelled heterogeneity in detection to brand reliable inferences (see [89]). The key concern is whether these heterogeneous detection probabilities can be captured adequately by a combination of ecology covariates and conditions specific to rail accumulation period [89], or by extending the interval for track aggregating over several days [70].

It is often reiterated that occupancy studies are advantageous because presence-absence information are often easier and less expensive to collect than count information (e.g., [86], [90]–[93]). Nonetheless, this suggestion is doubtful in the example of animal track surveys. Since all animate being tracks accept to be observed during a survey, nosotros propose that piddling additional effort is required to count every track intersection, from which presence-absence data are easily extracted later, if desired. Hayward et al. [29] reported that despite increased variance caused by counting repeat track intersections along transects, this index had more ability to discover declines in Amur tigers Panthera tigris altaica than did presence-absenteeism data. Presence-absence studies frequently report low power and adequacy to detect but large trends [20], [82], [94], [95], require intensive sampling protocols with a big number of replicates and repeated sampling over short periods [85], [89], and necessitate restrictive assumptions regarding independence of sampling units [70], [96]. In contrast, the FMP estimator embraces count data while dispensing with concern over private animals being detected in more ane sampling unit and negating the explicit requirement to gauge detectability. In many cases, the FMP formula may provide a more parsimonious approach than modelling occupancy every bit a surrogate for indexing abundance and monitoring population trends from creature tracks.

Implications for Indexing

FMP theory clarifies the implicit supposition of all efforts that use rails counts as indices of relative affluence with which to monitor change: average daily travel distances remain constant. This fact of form applies equally to the indexing of photographic camera trap rates to density [97], [98]. Practitioners need to appraise the extent to which this assumption is true for populations separated in time or space. If day range is density dependent, the causeless monotonic linear relationship between rail counts and true density will not concord. For example, information technology is possible that a drop in density with failing food availability may exist coupled to a asymmetric increase in day range as animals expand their home ranges or disperse [99], [100]. Changes may occur over relatively short periods. For case, in applying the FMP formula to estimate deer densities, Stephens et al. [52] subdivided movement data due to differences in day range between early and late winter. Irrespective of whether track counts or camera trap rates are used every bit relative indices or converted to density using the FMP formula and other random encounter models, there are obvious implications for the frequency with which day range needs to be reassessed when monitoring populations.

Calibrating runway indices to independent estimates of true density, then applying those linear models to guess density in other areas, is a growing practice applied to large carnivores in southern Africa [45]–[47], [101]–[103]. It is assumed during data collection that individual animals can be differentiated and counted in one case only during a survey, which may exist closely approximated with the help of extremely skilled trackers [71]. Stander [44] beginning mentioned "range utilisation," "habitat utilise," and "behaviour of species" influencing the gradient of the linear relationship between track counts and true density. If individual animals are recorded only once during a survey (and subsequent re-crossings are ignored), so the present results confirm that the shapes of those individual travel paths will go important in the alphabetize–density relationship. Stander's [44] comments are valid since stable animal path tortuosity must be assumed, including the supposition that movement parameters of the populations used to generate the linear calibration model practice non differ from the populations to which the scale model is applied. Furthermore, when multiple species are combined into a single linear model [47], this assumption must be extended to: all species used to generate the model and to which it is applied have equal twenty-four hours ranges and movement path tortuosities.

Big carnivores in particular pose a claiming to FMP application because their low densities crave big survey efforts, and the logistical practicalities of large survey efforts often dictate convenience sampling past vehicle along pre-existing linear features. Some species such every bit dark-brown hyaenas are quintessential trail users and about large carnivores habitually use linear features for ease of travel. Indeed, many indexing and occupancy approaches are based on such behaviour [24], [82], [84], [104]. Contempo studies [53], [105] accept highlighted the importance of random placement of camera traps with respect to naturally non-random animal movements to avoid biased inferences – a warning that applies equally to track transects and the FMP formula. Fifty-fifty though predators unduly utilise roads and trails throughout a landscape, randomly located sampling points or transects with respect to these linear features will render unbiased estimates at the landscape scale [54]. In contrast, applying the FMP formula to large carnivore-specific surveys whereby transects are situated not-randomly forth convenience features [45]–[47], [101]–[103] would presumably result in biased density estimates. In a practical sense, information technology would be useful to know whether these bias errors are generally larger or smaller than the bias errors resulting from collapsing differential twenty-four hours ranges of multiple species into a single alphabetize calibration model [47], fluctuations in both twenty-four hour period range and tortuosity in the animals to which the scale model is applied, and the error involved in isolating individuals past their tracks. Sampling forth roads and trails is always more practical, especially when large survey efforts are required, only practitioners should strive for random transects with respect to animal movements for unbiased inferences when applying the FMP method.

Conclusions

Our attempts to disprove the FMP formula through both virtual and empirical tests revealed no flaw in the simple equation. Information technology appears that the number of fauna crossings along lines depends simply on the density of those animals and how far they walk; the shape of specific movement paths is irrelevant. While spatial elements of beast movements have no fundamental begetting on accuracy, biases may arise from the placement of transects with respect to the distribution of animals and principles of good survey design, such as appropriate stratification, utilise to whatever method used to survey biological populations. We also stress that the sampling intensity and total survey effort required to achieve desirable levels of accurateness and precision in density estimates will depend on dispersion, 24-hour interval range, and movement patterns, in addition to density and group size [52], [57]. In item, populations with lower density, clumped dispersion, larger group sizes, shorter daily movement distances, and greater tortuosity will require larger survey efforts to achieve the desired accurateness and precision. The main practical limitation to the FMP approach is obtaining accurate estimates of twenty-four hour period range. While our capacity to obtain and share animal movement data continues to abound with advances in GPS technology, our ability to guess day range accurately from these data remains presently limited [106]. Notwithstanding, fifty-fifty coarse estimates of solar day range tin exist profitably applied to the FMP formula for many species whose abundances are impossible to estimate by other ways [107].

Bearing the to a higher place in mind, the FMP formula should exist applicative to any terrestrial species with readily observable tracks if 3 assumptions are met: (one) animal movements are random with respect to transects, that is, naturally not-random fauna movements are not influenced by the presence of a transect, (ii) all animals that intersect transects are detected and identified correctly, and (3) all intersections are enumerated regardless of individuals. Several track-based enquiry and monitoring programs utilise methods that already adapt these assumptions, including long-term data sets in the northern hemisphere [vi], and many more could easily be made amenable. Russian biologists have understood and take been using the FMP formula for decades. It is fortunate that this formula has go available to English speakers because conservation practitioners effectually the globe can do good from agreement and utilizing the FMP formula.

Acknowledgments

The Authorities of Botswana and Department of Wildlife and National Parks granted permission to conduct research in Botswana, for which we are grateful. Tracing antelope movements was made possible by the skilled horsemen trackers of Zutshwa and volunteers Chuck Newyar and Mark Benson. We also thank Philip Stephens, Erin Bayne, Lee Foote, Markus Gusset, and ii anonymous referees for comments that much improved the manuscript.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: DK RP. Performed the experiments: DK RP. Analyzed the data: DK. Wrote the newspaper: DK.

References

1. ane. Caughley G, Sinclair ARE (1994) Wildlife ecology and management. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific. 334 p.
2. 2. Duckworth JW (1998) The difficulty of estimating population densities of nocturnal forest mammals from transect counts of animals. J Zool 246: 466–468.
   • View Commodity
   • Google Scholar
3. 3. Chiarello AG (2000) Density and population size of mammals in remnants of Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Conserv Biol 14(half dozen): 1649–1657.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
4. four. Lopes MA, Ferrari SF (2000) Effects of human colonization on the abundance and diversity of mammals in eastern Brazilian Amazonia. Conserv Biol 14(six): 1658–1665.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
5. 5. Jachmann H (2001) Estimating abundance of African wildlife: an assist to adaptive management. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 285 p.
6. vi. Lindén H, Helle Eastward, Helle P, Wikman Thousand (1996) Wild animals triangle scheme in Finland: methods and aims for monitoring wild fauna populations. Finnish Game Res 49: 4–11.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
7. seven. Danilov P, Helle P, Annenkov V, Belkin V, Bljudnik L, et al. (1996) Status of game animal populations in Karelia and Finland according to winter track count data. Finnish Game Res 49: 18–25.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
8. 8. Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Establish (2012) Terrestrial field data collection protocols (abridged version) 2012-06-27. Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute, Alberta, Canada. Available: http://www.ambi.ca. Accessed twenty Jan 2014.
9. 9. Southgate R, Moseby K (2008) Track-based monitoring for the deserts and rangelands of Australia. Threatened Species Network, WWF Australia. Available: http://www.wwf.org.au. Accessed 20 January 2014.
10. 10. Soutiere EC (1979) Effects of timber harvesting on marten in Maine. J Wildl Manage 43: 850–860.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
11. 11. Raine RM (1983) Winter habitat use and responses to snow comprehend of fisher (Martes pennanti) and marten (Martes americana) in southeastern Manitoba. Can J Zool 61: 25–34.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
12. 12. Kurki S, Nikula A, Helle P, Linden H (1998) Abundances of red play a joke on and pino marten in relation to the composition of boreal wood landscapes. J Anim Ecol 67(six): 874–886.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
13. thirteen. Forsey ES, Baggs EM (2001) Winter activeness of mammals in riparian zones and next forests prior to and post-obit clear-cutting at Copper Lake, Newfoundland, Canada. Forest Ecol Manage 145: 163–171.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
14. 14. Crookes KR (2002) Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conserv Biol 16(two): 488–502.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
15. fifteen. Fritz H, Saïd S, Renaud PC, Mutake South, Coid C, et al. (2003) The effects of agricultural fields and human settlements on the use of rivers by wild fauna in the mid-Zambezi valley, Republic of zimbabwe. Landscape Ecol xviii: 293–302.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
16. 16. Norris D, Peres CA, Michalski F, Hinchsliffe K (2008) Terrestrial mammal responses to edges in Amazonian forest patches: a study based on runway stations. Mammalia 72(1): xv–23.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
17. 17. Dzięciolowski R (1976) Estimating ungulate numbers in a forest by track counts. Acta Theriol 21(15): 217–222.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
18. 18. Reid DG, Bayer MB, Code TE, McLean B (1987) A possible method for estimating river otter, Lutra canadensis, populations using snow tracks. Can Field Nat 101(4): 576–580.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
19. 19. Ballard WB, McKay ME, Gardner CL, Reed DJ (1995) Apply of line-intercept runway sampling for estimating wolf densities. In: Canadian Circumpolar Institute Occasional Publication No Carbyn LN, Fritts SH, Seip DR, editors. Environmental and conservation of wolves in a changing earth. 35: 469–480.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
20. 20. Beier P, Cunningham SC (1996) Power of runway surveys to find changes in cougar populations. Wildl Soc Bull 24(three): 540–546.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
21. 21. Engeman RM, Pipas MJ, Gruver KS, Bourassa J, Allen L (2002) Plot placement when using a passive tracking index to simultaneously monitor multiple species of animals. Wildl Res 29: 85–90.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
22. 22. Engeman RM, Evangilista P (2006) Investigating the feasibility of a passive tracking alphabetize for monitoring wild animals in the Lower Omo Valley, Federal democratic republic of ethiopia. Afr J Ecol 45: 184–188.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
23. 23. Linnell JDC, Fiske P, Herfindal I, Odden J, Brøseth H, et al. (2007) An evaluation of structured snow-runway surveys to monitor Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx populations. Wildl Biol xiii: 456–466.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
24. 24. Allen LR, Engeman R, Krupa H (1996) Evaluation of 3 relative abundance indices for assessing dingo populations. Wildl Res 23: 197–206.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
25. 25. Edwards GP, de Preu ND, Shakeshaft BJ, Crealy Four (2000) An evaluation of two methods of assessing feral cat and dingo abundance in central Australia. Wildl Res 27: 143–149.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
26. 26. Engeman RM, Constantin B, Nelson M, Woolard J, Bourassa J (2001) Monitoring changes in feral swine abundance and spatial distribution. Environ Conserv 28(3): 235–240.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
27. 27. Southgate RI, Paltridge RM, Masters P, Carthew SM (2007) The clan of introduced herbivores and predators with landscape features in the Tanami desert, Commonwealth of australia. J Arid Environ 68: 438–464.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
28. 28. Alibhai SK, Jewell ZC (1992) A systematic ground survey of black rhinoceros: Chirisa safari surface area and Sengwa wildlife research area. Rhinowatch Survey Study Zimbabwe. 51 p.
29. 29. Hayward GD, Miquelle DG, Smirnov EN, Nations C (2002) Monitoring Amur tiger populations: characteristics of rail surveys in snow. Wildl Soc Bull 30(4): 1150–1159.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
30. xxx. Karanth KU, Nichols JD, Seidensticker J, Dinerstein East, David Smith JL, et al. (2003) Science deficiency in conservation practice: the monitoring of tiger populations in India. Anim Conserv 6: 141–146.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
31. 31. Johnson Nosotros, Onorato DP, Roelke ME, Country ED, Cunningham One thousand, et al. (2010) Genetic restoration of the Florida panther. Science 329: 1641–1645.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
32. 32. Edelmann F, Copeland J (1999) Wolverine distribution in the northwestern United States and a survey in the Vii Devils mountains of Idaho. Northwest Sci 73: 295–300.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
33. 33. Halfpenny JC, Thompson RW, Morse SC, Holden T, Rezendes P (1995) Snow tracking. In: Zielinski WJ, Kucera TE, editors. American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine: survey methods for their detection. General Technical Report PSW GTR-157. Albany, California: Pacific Southwest Inquiry Station, USDA Woods Service. 91–163.
34. 34. Wong PBY, Van Coeverden de Groot P, Fekken C, Smith H, Pagès Thousand, et al. (2010) Interpretations of polar bear (Ursus maritimus) tracks by Inuit hunters: inter-rater reliability and inferences concerning accuracy. Tin can Field Nat 125(2): 140–153.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
35. 35. Liebenberg L (1990) The fine art of tracking, the origin of science. Greatcoat Town: David Philip. 176 p.
36. 36. Becker EJ (1991) A terrestrial furbearer estimator based on probability sampling. J Wildl Manage 55(4): 730–737.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
37. 37. Sarrazin JPR, Bider JR (1973) Activeness, a neglected parameter in population estimates: the development of a new technique. J Mammal 54(2): 369–382.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
38. 38. Thompson ID, Davidson IJ, O'Donnell S, Brazeau F (1989) Use of track transects to measure the relative occurrence of some boreal mammals in uncut woods and regeneration stands. Can J Zool 67: 1816–1823.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
39. 39. Smallwood KS, Fitzhugh EL (1995) A track count for estimating mountain lion Felis concolor californica population trends. Biol Conserv 71: 251–259.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
40. 40. Carrillo Due east, Wong G, Caurón AD (2000) Monitoring mammal populations in Costa Rican protected areas under different hunting restrictions. Conserv Biol xiv(6): 1580–1591.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
41. 41. Silveira 50, Jacomo ATA, Diniz-Filho JAF (2003) Camera trap, line transect census and track surveys: a comparative evaluation. Biol Conserv 114: 351–355.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
42. 42. Blaum Due north, Engeman RM, Wasiolka B, Rossmanith Eastward (2008) Indexing small mammalian carnivores in the southern Kalahari, Southward Africa. Wildl Res 35: 72–79.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
43. 43. Servin J, Rau JR, Delibes Thou (1987) Use of radio tracking to better the estimation past track counts of the relative abundance of carmine flim-flam. Acta Theriol 32: 489–492.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
44. 44. Stander PE (1998) Spoor counts equally indices of large carnivore populations: the relationship between spoor frequency, sampling endeavour and true density. J Appl Ecol 35: 378–385.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
45. 45. Funston PJ (2001) Kalahari transfrontier lion projection: final report. Submitted to South African National Parks and Botswana Department of Wildlife and National Parks.
46. 46. Houser AM, Somers MJ, Avowal LK (2009) Spoor density as a measure of true density of a known population of free-ranging wild cheetah in Botswana. J Zool 278: 108–115.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
47. 47. Funston PJ, Frank Fifty, Stephans T, Davidson Z, Loveridge A, et al. (2010) Substrate and species constraints on the use of track indices to approximate African big carnivore abundance. J Zool 281: 56–65.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
48. 48. Anderson DR (2001) The need to go the basics right in wildlife field studies. Wildl Soc Balderdash 29(4): 1294–1297.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
49. 49. Jennelle CS, Nichols JD, MacKenzie DI (2002) The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals: a comment on misleading conclusions. Anim Conserv 5: 119–120.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
50. 50. Engeman RM (2003) More than on the demand to become the basics correct: population indices. Wildl Soc Bull 31(1): 286–287.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
51. 51. Carbone C, Christie Due south, Conforti K, Coulson T, Franklin N, et al. (2002) The use of photographic rates to judge densities of ambiguous mammals: response to Jennelle, et al. Anim Conserv 5: 121–123.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
52. 52. Stephens PA, Zaumyslova OY, Miquelle DG, Myslenkov AI, Hayward GD (2006) Estimating population density from indirect sign: track counts and the Formozov-Malyshev-Pereleshin formula. Anim Conserv 9: 339–348.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
53. 53. Rowcliffe JM, Field J, Turvey ST, Carbone C (2008) Estimating animal density using camera traps without the need for individual recognition. J Appl Ecol 45: 1228–1236.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
54. 54. Rowcliffe JM, Kays R, Carbone C, Jansen PA (2013) Clarifying assumptions behind the estimation of animal density from camera trap rates. J Wildl Manage 77(5): 876.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
55. 55. Hutchinson JMC, Waser PM (2007) Utilise, misuse and extensions of 'platonic gas' models of animal encounter. Biol Rev 82: 335–359.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
56. 56. Gurarie E, Ovaskainen O (2013) Towards a general formalization of encounter rates in ecology. Theor Ecol 6: 189–202.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
57. 57. Stephens PA, Zaumyslova OY, Miquelle DG, Myslenkov AI, Hayward GD (2006) Analysis of the long-term dynamics of ungulates in Sikhote-Alin Zapovednik, Russian Far East. Report to the USDA Forest Service and Sikhote-Alin Zapovednik.
58. 58. Skarpe C (1986) Plant community structure in relation to grazing and environmental changes forth a north-south transect in the western Kalahari. Vegetatio 68(i): 3–eighteen.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
59. 59. Skinner JD, Chimimba CT (2005) The mammals of the southern African Sub-region. Cape Boondocks: Cambridge University Press. 814 p.
60. 60. Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL, Borchers DL, et al. (2001) Introduction to distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford: Oxford University Printing. 432 p.
61. 61. Thomas L, Buckland ST, Rexstad EA, Laake JL, Strindberg S, et al. (2010) Distance software: design and analysis of distance sampling surveys for estimating population size. J Appl Ecol 47: five–fourteen.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
62. 62. Efron B, Tibshirani R (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall. 456 p.
63. 63. Keswick T (2012) Ecology and morphology of the Kalahari tent tortoise, Psammobates oculifer, in a semi-arid environment. University of Western Cape, PhD thesis.
64. 64. Wrangham RW, Gittleman JL, Chapman CA (1993) Constraints on group-size in primates and carnivores: population-density and day-range as assays of exploitation competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32: 199–209.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
65. 65. Carbone C, Cowlishaw G, Isaac NJB, Rowcliffe JM (2005) How far do animals go? Determinants of day range in mammals. Am Nat 165(2): 290–297.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
66. 66. Mills MGL (1990). Kalahari hyaenas: comparative behavioural environmental of ii species. London: Unwin Hyman. 320 p.
67. 67. McBride RT, McBride RT, McBride RM, McBride CE (2008) Counting pumas by categorizing physical evidence. Southeast Nat 7(3): 381–400.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
68. 68. Squires JR, McKelvey KS, Ruggiero LF (2004) A snow-tracking protocol used to delineate local lynx, Lynx canadensis, distributions. Can Field Nat 118(4): 583–589.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
69. 69. Wilson GJ, Delahay RJ (2001) A review of methods to estimate the affluence of terrestrial carnivores using field signs and observation. Wildl Res 28(2): 151–164.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
70. 70. Stanley TR, Royle JA (2005) Estimating site occupancy and affluence using indirect detection indices. J Wilde Manage 69(3): 874–883.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
71. 71. Stander PE, Ghau//, Tsisaba D, ≠oma// |ui| (1997) Tracking and the interpretation of spoor: a scientifically sound method in ecology. J Zool 242: 329–341.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
72. 72. Smallwood KS, Fitzhugh EL (1993) A rigorous technique for identifying individual mountain lions Felis concolor past their tracks. Biol Conserv 65: 51–59.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
73. 73. Riordan P (1998) Unsupervised recognition of individual tigers and snow leopards from their footprints. Anim Conserv 1: 253–262.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
74. 74. Sharma S, Jhala Y, Sawarkar VB (2005) Identification of individual tigers (Panthera tigris) from their pugmarks. J Zool 267: 9–eighteen.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
75. 75. Jewell ZC, Alibhai SK, Law PR (2001) Censusing and monitoring black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) using an objective spoor (footprint) identification technique. J Zool 254: i–16.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
76. 76. Lizcano DJ, Cavelier J (2000) Densidad poblacional y disponibilidad de habitat de la danta de montaña (Tapirus pinchaque) en los Andes Centrales de Republic of colombia. Biotropica 32: 165–173 (in Castilian).
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
77. 77. Jachmann H (1984) Status of the Mwabvi rhino (Diceros bicornis). Nyala 10: 77–xc.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
78. 78. Mahon PS, Banks Atomic number 82, Dickman CR (1998) Population indices for wild carnivores: a critical written report in sand-dune habitat, southward-western Queensland. Wildl Res 25: 11–22.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
79. 79. O'Donoghue M, Boutin S, Krebs CJ, Hofer EJ (1997) Numerical responses of coyotes and lynx to the snowshoe hare bike. Oikos eighty: 150–162.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
80. fourscore. Evans JW, Evans CA, Packard JM, Calkins G, Elbroch M (2009) Determining observer reliability in counts of river otter tracks. J Wildl Manage 73(3): 426–432.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
81. 81. Wharton CA (2006) Are we gathering reliable data? The need for measuring observer skill in wildlife monitoring. Texas A&G University, MSc thesis.
82. 82. Kendall KC, Metzgar LH, Patterson DA, Steele BM (1992) Power of sign surveys to monitor population trends. Ecol Appl 2(4): 422–430.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
83. 83. Zielinski WJ, Stauffer HB (1996) Monitoring Martes populations in California: survey pattern and ability analysis. Ecol Appl 6(4): 1254–1267.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
84. 84. Hines JE, Nichols JD, MacKenzie DI, Gopalaswamy AM, Samba Kumar Northward, et al. (2010) Tigers on trails: occupancy modeling for cluster sampling. Ecol Appl twenty(5): 1456–1466.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
85. 85. MacKenzie DL, Royle JA (2005) Designing occupancy studies: general advice and allocating survey effort. J Appl Ecol 42: 1105–1114.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
86. 86. Vojta CD (2005) Old domestic dog, new tricks: innovations with presence-absence data. J Wildl Manage 69(three): 845–848.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
87. 87. MacKenzie DL (2005) What are the issues with presence-absence information for wild animals managers? J Wildl Manage 69(three): 849–860.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
88. 88. Roshier DA, Doerr VAJ, Doerr ED (2008) Animal movement in dynamic landscapes: interaction between behavioural strategies and resource distributions. Oecologia 156(two): 465–477.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
89. 89. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Lachman GB, Droege S, Royle JA, et al. (2002) Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Environmental 83(8): 2248–2255.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
90. 90. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD (2004) Occupancy as a surrogate for abundance interpretation. Anim Biodiv and Conserv 27(1): 461–467.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
91. 91. Gu Westward, Swihart RK (2004) Absent or undetected? Effects of non-detection of species occurrence on wildlife-habitat models. Biol Conserv 116: 195–203.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
92. 92. Nielsen SE, Johnson CJ, Heard DC, Boyce MS (2005) Can models of presence-absenteeism be used to scale abundance? Ii case studies considering extremes in life history. Ecography 28: 197–208.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
93. 93. O'Connell AF, Talancy NW, Bailey LL, Sauer JR, Cook R, et al. (2006) Estimating site occupancy and detection probability parameters for meso and large mammals in a coastal ecosystem. J Wildl Manage 70(half dozen): 1625–1633.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
94. 94. Clevenger AP, Purroy FJ (1996) Sign surveys for estimating trend of a remnant brown bear Ursus arctos population in northern Spain. Wildl Biol ii: 275–281.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
95. 95. Strayer DL (1999) Statistical power of presence-absenteeism data to detect population declines. Conserv Biol 13(five): 1034–1038.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
96. 96. Royle JA, Nichols JD (2003) Estimating abundance from repeated presence-absence data of indicate counts. Ecology 84(3): 777–790.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
97. 97. Carbone C, Christie S, Conforti One thousand, Coulson T, Franklin Due north, et al. (2001) The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of cryptic mammals. Anim Conserv 4: 75–79.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
98. 98. Rovero F, Marshall AR (2009) Photographic camera trapping photographic rate as an alphabetize of density in forest ungulates. J Appl Ecol 46: 1011–1017.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
99. 99. Ward RMP, Krebs CJ (1985) Behavioural responses of lynx to declining snowshoe hare abundance. Tin can J Zool 63: 2817–2824.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
100. 100. Norbury GL, Norbury DC, Heyward RP (1998) Behavioral responses of two predator species to sudden declines in primary casualty. J Wildl Manage 62(1): 45–58.
     • View Commodity
     • Google Scholar
101. 101. Gusset Chiliad, Burgener N (2005) Estimating big carnivore numbers from rail counts and measurements. Afr J Ecol 43: 320–324.
     • View Article
     • Google Scholar
102. 102. Balme GA, Hunter LTB, Slotow R (2009) Evaluating methods for counting ambiguous carnivores. J Wildl Manage 73(three): 433–441.
     • View Commodity
     • Google Scholar
103. 103. Boast LK, Houser A (2012) Density of big predators on commercial farmland in Ghanzi, Republic of botswana. Due south Afr J Wildl Res 42(2): 118–143.
     • View Commodity
     • Google Scholar
104. 104. Thorn M, Green M, Bateman PW, Waite S, Scott DM (2011) Brown hyaenas on roads: estimating carnivore occupancy and abundance using spatially car-correlated sign survey replicates. Biol Conserv 144: 1799–1807.
     • View Article
     • Google Scholar
105. 105. Wearn OR, Rowcliffe JM, Carbone C, Bernard H, Ewers RM (2013) Assessing the status of wild felids in a highly-disturbed commercial forest reserve in Borneo and the implications for camera trap survey blueprint. PLoS One 8(11): e77598
     • View Article
     • Google Scholar
106. 106. Rowcliffe JM, Carbone C, Kays R, Kranstauber B, Jansen PA (2012) Bias in estimating animal travel distance: the result of sampling frequency. Methods Ecol Evol 3(4): 653–662.
     • View Commodity
     • Google Scholar
107. 107. Keeping D (2014) Rapid assessment of wildlife abundance: estimating animal density with track counts using trunk mass-twenty-four hour period range scaling rules. Anim Conserv DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12113.

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0096598

Posted by: ferraraemparch.blogspot.com

Share this post