...
首页> 外文期刊>Wildlife Society Bulletin >Costs and Precision of Fecal DNA Mark–Recapture versus Traditional Mark–Resight
【24h】

Costs and Precision of Fecal DNA Mark–Recapture versus Traditional Mark–Resight

机译:粪便DNA标记的成本和精度 - recapture与传统的标志 - 性交

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Wildlife managers often need to estimate population abundance to make well‐informed decisions. However, obtaining such estimates can be difficult and costly, particularly for species with small populations, wide distributions, and spatial clusteringof individuals. For this reason, DNA surveys and capture–recapture modeling has become increasingly common where direct observation is consistently difficult or counts are small or variable. We compared the precision, as indicated by the coefficient ofvariation (CV), and cost‐effectiveness of 2 methods to estimate abundance of desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) populations: traditional ground‐based mark–resight and fecal DNA capture–recapture. In the Marble Mountains in the Mojave Desert of southeastern California, USA, we conducted annual ground‐based mark–resight surveys and collected fecal samples at water sources concurrently during the dry seasons (Jun–Jul) of 2016 and 2017. Fecal DNA samples were genotyped to identify uniqueindividuals. The Lincoln–Peterson bias‐corrected estimator and Huggins closed‐capture recapture models were used to estimate abundance for the ground‐based mark resight and fecal DNA capture–recapture, respectively. We compared costs between the 2 methods for our study and used simulations to estimate costs for a variety of possible sampling scenarios for our study system based on field‐based estimates. Population abundance estimates from fecal DNA capture–recapture achieved much greater precision (CV=5–7%) than estimates derived from ground‐based mark–resight (CV=21–56%). Our simulations indicated that for a population of 100, 2 sampling occasions, and resight probability of 0.20, the lowest CV obtained by mark–resight was approximately 12%. We predict the cost of abundance estimates for this level of precision (CV=12%) from fecal DNA capture–recapture would be 28% of the cost of ground‐based mark–resight (i.e., a 72% cost reduction). We conclude that fecal DNA capture–recapture is ahighly cost‐effective alternative for estimating abundance of relatively small populations (≤300) of desert bighorn sheep. More broadly, integrating simulated study designs with cost analyses provides a tool to identify the most effective method for estimating abundance over a wide variety of sampling scenarios.
机译:野生动物经理经常需要估计人口丰富,以获得知情的决策。然而,获得这种估计值可能是困难且昂贵的,特别是对于具有小人物,广泛分布和空间聚类的物种。因此,DNA调查和捕获重新捕获建模越来越常见,其中直接观察始终困难或计数是小或可变的。我们比较了精度,如估计估计丰富的沙漠大角羊(OVIS Canadensis Nelsoni)群体的2种方法的成本效益:传统地面标记和粪便DNA捕获 - 重新捕获。在美国东南部的Mojave沙漠中的大理石山脉,我们在2016年和2017年的干燥季节(Jun-Jul)期间,在水源上进行了一年的基于地面的标记调查,并在水源中收集了粪便样本。粪便DNA样本是基因分为识别独一无二的人。林肯 - 彼得森偏置估计估计和Huggins闭合捕获重新捕获模型用于分别估算基于地面的标记和粪便DNA捕获重量的丰富。我们对我们研究的2种方法之间的成本进行了比较,并使用模拟来估算基于现场估算的研究系统各种可能的采样方案的成本。来自粪便DNA捕获的人口丰度估计 - 重量估计比基于地面的标记 - 超出(CV = 21-56%)所衍生的估计更高的精度(CV = 5-7%)。我们的模拟表明,对于100,2个采样场合的人口,并使概率为0.20,Mark-Sulsik获得的最低CV约为12%。我们预测来自粪便DNA捕获的这种精度水平(CV = 12%)的丰度估计的成本是基于地面标记的成本的28%(即,降低成本72%)。我们得出结论,粪便DNA捕获 - 再捕获是一种高成本的替代性,用于估计沙漠大角羊的相对小人物(≤300)的丰富。更广泛地,整合模拟的研究设计与成本分析提供了一种工具,用于识别最有效的方法,以估算各种采样方案的丰富。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Wildlife Society Bulletin》 |2020年第3期|共12页
  • 作者单位

    Utah State University Wildland Resources Department 5230 Old Main Hill NR 206 Logan UT 84322 USA;

    Utah State University Wildland Resources Department 5230 Old Main Hill NR 206 Logan UT 84322 USA;

    California Department of Fish and Wildlife 787 N Main Street Bishop CA 93514 USA;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 动物学;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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