Comparison of in-person and remote camera lek surveys for prairie grouse (Tympanuchus spp.)

IF 1.5 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 Environmental Science Wildlife Society Bulletin Pub Date : 2023-12-04 DOI:10.1002/wsb.1499
Jennifer L. Stenglein, Emily B. Donovan, Christopher D. Pollentier, Taylor R. Peltier, Sean M. Lee, Anne B. McDonnell, Lesa H. Kardash, David M. MacFarland, Scott D. Hull
{"title":"Comparison of in-person and remote camera lek surveys for prairie grouse (Tympanuchus spp.)","authors":"Jennifer L. Stenglein, Emily B. Donovan, Christopher D. Pollentier, Taylor R. Peltier, Sean M. Lee, Anne B. McDonnell, Lesa H. Kardash, David M. MacFarland, Scott D. Hull","doi":"10.1002/wsb.1499","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In-person lek count surveys are commonly used for estimating population size and trends for prairie grouse. However, the emergence of noninvasive camera trap survey methods holds promise for more cost-effective and precise estimates of lekking species. To evaluate the efficacy of using camera traps, we deployed a remote camera study at lekking grounds over 3 years in conjunction with in-person surveys. Our objectives were to 1) develop an effective remote camera survey for greater prairie-chickens (GRPC; <i>Tympanuchus cupido</i>) and sharp-tailed grouse (STGR; <i>T. phasianellus</i>), 2) compare metrics of male detection, maximum male counts, and male abundance estimates derived from in-person versus remote camera surveys, 3) assess lek activity over the survey season to inform survey timing, and 4) evaluate costs for each survey type. We found that in-person surveys resulted in maximum male GRPC and STGR counts. The estimated number of male GRPC and STGR on leks were comparable between in-person surveys and camera monitoring when accounting for detection probability with N-mixture models. Camera traps constantly monitored leks over the season which provided daily and seasonal activity patterns of prairie grouse. Total cost of GRPC remote camera surveys was higher than in-person surveys, but hourly cost was less ($0.77 vs. $160 per hour). Remote camera survey costs for GRPC were high because of time classifying photos which could be reduced by decreasing the amount of time remote cameras were operated or using automated classification software to remove blank photos. We believe the use of remote cameras could supplement in-person surveys for future lek monitoring and aid future survey efforts by identifying yearly differences in activity and presence at leks inconsistently visited by birds.","PeriodicalId":23845,"journal":{"name":"Wildlife Society Bulletin","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wildlife Society Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1499","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Environmental Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In-person lek count surveys are commonly used for estimating population size and trends for prairie grouse. However, the emergence of noninvasive camera trap survey methods holds promise for more cost-effective and precise estimates of lekking species. To evaluate the efficacy of using camera traps, we deployed a remote camera study at lekking grounds over 3 years in conjunction with in-person surveys. Our objectives were to 1) develop an effective remote camera survey for greater prairie-chickens (GRPC; Tympanuchus cupido) and sharp-tailed grouse (STGR; T. phasianellus), 2) compare metrics of male detection, maximum male counts, and male abundance estimates derived from in-person versus remote camera surveys, 3) assess lek activity over the survey season to inform survey timing, and 4) evaluate costs for each survey type. We found that in-person surveys resulted in maximum male GRPC and STGR counts. The estimated number of male GRPC and STGR on leks were comparable between in-person surveys and camera monitoring when accounting for detection probability with N-mixture models. Camera traps constantly monitored leks over the season which provided daily and seasonal activity patterns of prairie grouse. Total cost of GRPC remote camera surveys was higher than in-person surveys, but hourly cost was less ($0.77 vs. $160 per hour). Remote camera survey costs for GRPC were high because of time classifying photos which could be reduced by decreasing the amount of time remote cameras were operated or using automated classification software to remove blank photos. We believe the use of remote cameras could supplement in-person surveys for future lek monitoring and aid future survey efforts by identifying yearly differences in activity and presence at leks inconsistently visited by birds.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
草原松鸡(Tympanuchus spp.)现场与远程相机调查的比较
实地调查通常用于估计草原松鸡的种群规模和趋势。然而,非侵入式相机陷阱调查方法的出现为更经济有效和精确地估计泄漏物种提供了希望。为了评估使用相机陷阱的效果,我们在泄漏场地部署了一项远程相机研究,为期3年,同时进行了现场调查。我们的目标是1)开发一种有效的大草原鸡(GRPC;鼓尾松鸡(Tympanuchus cupido)和尖尾松鸡(STGR;2)比较从现场调查和远程相机调查中得出的雄性检测指标、最大雄性计数和雄性丰度估计,3)评估调查季节的lek活动,以告知调查时间,4)评估每种调查类型的成本。我们发现,面对面的调查导致男性GRPC和STGR计数最多。当考虑到n-混合模型的检测概率时,现场调查和摄像机监测的雄性GRPC和STGR估计数量在泄漏上具有可比性。相机陷阱在整个季节都在不断地监测漏气,从而提供草原松鸡的日常和季节性活动模式。GRPC远程摄像机调查的总成本高于现场调查,但每小时成本较低(0.77美元/小时vs 160美元/小时)。GRPC遥感相机调查成本较高,因为需要对照片进行分类,可以通过减少遥感相机的操作时间或使用自动分类软件去除空白照片来降低成本。我们认为,远程摄像机的使用可以补充面对面的调查,以进行未来的泄漏监测,并通过确定鸟类不一致访问的泄漏活动和存在的年度差异来帮助未来的调查工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Wildlife Society Bulletin
Wildlife Society Bulletin BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
13.30%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Wildlife Society Bulletin is a journal for wildlife practitioners that effectively integrates cutting edge science with management and conservation, and also covers important policy issues, particularly those that focus on the integration of science and policy. Wildlife Society Bulletin includes articles on contemporary wildlife management and conservation, education, administration, law enforcement, and review articles on the philosophy and history of wildlife management and conservation. This includes: Reports on practices designed to achieve wildlife management or conservation goals. Presentation of new techniques or evaluation of techniques for studying or managing wildlife. Retrospective analyses of wildlife management and conservation programs, including the reasons for success or failure. Analyses or reports of wildlife policies, regulations, education, administration, law enforcement. Review articles on the philosophy and history of wildlife management and conservation. as well as other pertinent topics that are deemed more appropriate for the Wildlife Society Bulletin than for The Journal of Wildlife Management. Book reviews that focus on applied research, policy or wildlife management and conservation.
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the performance of semiautomated photographic identification programs for leopard seals The use of orthoimagery and stereoscopic aerial imagery to identify muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) houses Pesticide-free management of invasive ants impacting ground-nesting wildlife populations Considerations for a threatened seabird: The impact of shoreline avian predators on at-sea marbled murrelets Abundance estimates of Gunnison's prairie dogs compared to the number of active burrows
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1