首页> 外文OA文献 >Estimating lizard population density: An empirical comparison between line-transect and capture-recapture methods
【2h】

Estimating lizard population density: An empirical comparison between line-transect and capture-recapture methods

机译:估计蜥蜴种群密度:线断面法和捕获再捕获法之间的经验比较

摘要

Context In most natural populations, exhaustive counts are not possible and estimates need to be derived from partial sampling by using analytical methods that account for biological processes, sampling errors and detection probability. The methods available have contrasting pitfalls and payoffs in relation to the assumptions made but are seldom contrasted on the same population. Aims We compared density estimates derived by different sampling methods. Despite the real density being unknown, the 'soft' validation of density estimates might help to better understand the possible pitfalls and payoffs of each method. This was done in three closed populations and with three different habitat typologies to disentangle the effects of different capture-detection processes to those introduced by the method itself. Methods We considered the problem of estimating population density of the endemic Balearic lizard, Podarcis lilfordi, in three island populations. We compared estimates derived by distance sampling (LT) in three types of habitat with those calculated from a simultaneous 3-day capture-mark-recapture study. Capture histories of marked individuals were used to estimate density using spatially explicit capture-recapture models (SECR) and a capture-mark-recapture model without spatial data (CMR). Moreover, we empirically assessed the influence of survey duration by extending the survey in the largest island to five occasions. The real population density was unknown and absolute accuracy of each method cannot be assessed; nevertheless, relative estimates might be informative. Key results LT estimates had the greatest coefficient of variation in vegetated habitats, corresponding to possible departures from model assumptions. SECR estimates differed among islands and were from 12% to 37% lower than those derived by LT but only in the largest islands with high and dense vegetation. CMR estimates depended on the number of occasions whereas SECR did not and showed lower variance. LT and SECR estimates showed differences across islets. Conclusions Line-transect and capture-recapture methods gave comparable results but the interaction between recapture processes and habitat types should be considered when inferring density to the whole area. We found density estimates between 1500 and 2500 individuals ha-1, being a higher value than those found for lizards in continental regions. Implications Pitfalls and payoffs of each method are discussed to optimise experimental design in estimating population density. © 2013 CSIRO.
机译:背景信息在大多数自然种群中,不可能进行详尽的计数,需要通过使用考虑生物过程,采样误差和检测概率的分析方法,从部分采样中得出估计值。相对于所做的假设,可用的方法具有截然不同的陷阱和收益,但很少在相同人群上形成对比。目的我们比较了通过不同采样方法得出的密度估计。尽管实际密度未知,但密度估计的“软”验证可能有助于更好地了解每种方法的可能陷阱和收益。这是在三个封闭的种群中进行的,具有三种不同的栖息地类型,以区分不同捕获检测过程对方法本身引入的影响。方法我们考虑了在三个岛屿种群中估计地方性巴利阿里蜥蜴Podarcis lilfordi种群密度的问题。我们将通过距离采样(LT)在三种类型的栖息地中获得的估计与从同时进行的3天捕获标记捕获研究中得出的估计值进行了比较。使用空间明确的捕获-捕获模型(SECR)和无空间数据的捕获-标记-捕获模型(CMR),使用标记的个体的捕获历史来估计密度。此外,我们通过将最大岛屿上的调查扩展到五次,从经验上评估了调查时间的影响。实际人口密度未知,并且每种方法的绝对准确性无法评估;但是,相对估计可能会提供参考。关键结果LT估计值在植被生境中具有最大的变异系数,与可能偏离模型假设的情况相对应。不同岛屿之间的SECR估算值有所不同,比LT估算的值低12%至37%,但仅在植被茂密的最大岛屿上才有。 CMR估计值取决于次数,而SECR则没有,并且显示出较低的方差。 LT和SECR估计值显示胰岛之间存在差异。结论线断面法和捕获-捕获法得出的结果相当,但是在推断整个区域的密度时应考虑捕获过程与生境类型之间的相互作用。我们发现密度估计为1500至2500个个体ha-1,这比在大陆地区发现的蜥蜴值高。启示讨论了每种方法的陷阱和收益,以优化估计人口密度的实验设计。 ©2013 CSIRO。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

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