首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Ecology and Evolution >Cameras or Camus? Comparing Snow Track Surveys and Camera Traps to Estimate Densities of Unmarked Wildlife Populations
【2h】

Cameras or Camus? Comparing Snow Track Surveys and Camera Traps to Estimate Densities of Unmarked Wildlife Populations

机译:相机还是加缪?比较雪道调查和相机陷阱以估计未标记野生动物种群的密度

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Population density is a valuable metric used to manage wildlife populations. In the Russian Far East, managers use the Formozov‐ Malyushev‐Pereleshin (FMP) snow tracking method to estimate densities of ungulates for hunting management. The FMP also informs Amur tiger (Panthera tigris altaica) conservation since estimates of prey density and biomass help inform conservation interventions. Yet, climate change and challenges with survey design call into question the reliability of the FMP. Camera traps offer a promising alternative, but they remain unexplored for monitoring tiger prey density. Over three years (2020‐2022), we used the FMP and camera‐based methods to estimate densities of four prey species of the Amur tiger in the Sikhote‐ Alin Biosphere Reserve, Russian Far East: wild boar (Sus scrofa), red deer (Cervus canadensis), roe deer (Capreolus pygargus), and sika deer (Cervus nippon). We compared FMP results from snow track survey routes either along trails, or along routes representative of the study area, and estimates derived from camera data using the random encounter model (REM), space‐to‐event model (STE), and time‐to‐event model (TTE). We found that density estimates from representative routes were typically lower than routes along trails and indicated different relative densities of prey. Density estimates from camera traps and representative track surveys were generally similar with no significant relative bias, but precision was poor for all methods. Differences between estimates were amplified when converted to prey biomass, particularly with larger, more abundant prey, which poses a challenge for their utility for tiger managers. We conclude camera traps can offer an alternative to snow track surveys when monitoring unmarked prey, but we caution that they require considerably more resources to implement. Tiger managers should be especially cautious when extrapolating density to estimates of prey biomass, and we encourage future research to develop more robust methods for doing so.
机译:种群密度是用于管理野生动物种群的重要指标。在俄罗斯远东地区,管理人员使用 Formozov‐ Malyushev‐Pereleshin (FMP) 积雪跟踪方法来估计有蹄类动物的密度,以进行狩猎管理。FMP 还为东北虎 (Panthera tigris altaica) 保护提供信息,因为对猎物密度和生物量的估计有助于为保护干预措施提供信息。然而,气候变化和调查设计的挑战使 FMP 的可靠性受到质疑。相机陷阱提供了一个很有前途的替代方案,但它们仍未被用于监测老虎猎物密度。在三年内(2020-2022 年),我们使用 FMP 和基于相机的方法估计了俄罗斯远东锡霍特-阿林生物圈保护区东北虎的四种猎物的密度:野猪 (Sus scrofa)、马鹿 (Cervus canadensis)、狍 (Capreolus pygargus) 和梅花鹿 (Cervus nippon)。我们比较了沿小径或代表研究区域的路线的雪道调查路线的 FMP 结果,以及使用随机相遇模型 (REM)、空间到事件模型 (STE) 和时间到事件模型 (TTE) 从相机数据得出的估计值。我们发现,代表性路线的密度估计通常低于沿小径的路线,并表明猎物的相对密度不同。相机陷阱和代表性轨迹调查的密度估计值通常相似,没有显著的相对偏差,但所有方法的精度都很差。当转换为猎物生物量时,估计之间的差异被放大,尤其是对于更大、更丰富的猎物,这对老虎管理者的效用构成了挑战。我们得出结论,在监测未标记的猎物时,相机陷阱可以提供雪地轨迹调查的替代方案,但我们警告说,它们需要更多的资源来实施。老虎管理人员在根据猎物生物量的估计值推断密度时应特别谨慎,我们鼓励未来的研究开发更可靠的方法来做到这一点。

著录项

代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号