Amy J. Davis, Wesley C. Dixon, Richard B. Chipman, Amy T. Gilbert, Jacob E. Hill, James C. Beasley, Olin E. Rhodes Jr., Guha Dharmarajan
{"title":"Raccoon density estimation from camera traps for raccoon rabies management","authors":"Amy J. Davis, Wesley C. Dixon, Richard B. Chipman, Amy T. Gilbert, Jacob E. Hill, James C. Beasley, Olin E. Rhodes Jr., Guha Dharmarajan","doi":"10.1002/jwmg.22701","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Density estimation for unmarked animals is particularly challenging, yet density estimates are often necessary for effective wildlife management. Raccoons (<i>Procyon lotor</i>) are the primary terrestrial wildlife reservoir for Lyssavirus rabies within the United States. The raccoon rabies variant (RRVV) is actively managed at landscape scales using oral rabies vaccination (ORV) within the eastern United States. To effectively manage RRVV, it is important to know the density of raccoons to appropriately scale the density of ORV baits distributed on the landscape. We compared methods to estimate raccoon densities from camera-trap data versus more intensive capture-mark-recapture (CMR) estimates across 2 land cover types (upland pine and bottomland hardwood) in the southeastern United States during 2019 and 2020. We evaluated the effect of alternative camera configurations and durations of camera trapping on density estimates and used an N-mixture model to estimate raccoon densities, including covariates on abundance and detection. We further compared different methods of scaling camera-based counts, with the maximum number of raccoons seen on any given image within a day best explaining density. Camera-trap density estimates were moderately correlated with CMR estimates (<i>r</i> = 0.56). However, densities from camera-trap data were more reliable when classifying category of density as an index used to inform management (83% correct when compared to CMR estimates), although the densities in our study fell into the 2 lowest density classes only. Using more cameras reduced bias and uncertainty around density estimates; however, if ≤6 camera traps were used at a site, a line transect approach proved less biased than a grid design. Camera trapping should be conducted for at least 3 weeks for more accurate estimates of raccoon population density in our study area (<5% bias). We show that camera-trap data can be used to assign raccoon densities to management-relevant density index bins, but more studies are needed to ensure reliability across a greater range of environmental conditions and raccoon densities.</p>","PeriodicalId":17504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Management","volume":"89 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jwmg.22701","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Wildlife Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.22701","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Density estimation for unmarked animals is particularly challenging, yet density estimates are often necessary for effective wildlife management. Raccoons (Procyon lotor) are the primary terrestrial wildlife reservoir for Lyssavirus rabies within the United States. The raccoon rabies variant (RRVV) is actively managed at landscape scales using oral rabies vaccination (ORV) within the eastern United States. To effectively manage RRVV, it is important to know the density of raccoons to appropriately scale the density of ORV baits distributed on the landscape. We compared methods to estimate raccoon densities from camera-trap data versus more intensive capture-mark-recapture (CMR) estimates across 2 land cover types (upland pine and bottomland hardwood) in the southeastern United States during 2019 and 2020. We evaluated the effect of alternative camera configurations and durations of camera trapping on density estimates and used an N-mixture model to estimate raccoon densities, including covariates on abundance and detection. We further compared different methods of scaling camera-based counts, with the maximum number of raccoons seen on any given image within a day best explaining density. Camera-trap density estimates were moderately correlated with CMR estimates (r = 0.56). However, densities from camera-trap data were more reliable when classifying category of density as an index used to inform management (83% correct when compared to CMR estimates), although the densities in our study fell into the 2 lowest density classes only. Using more cameras reduced bias and uncertainty around density estimates; however, if ≤6 camera traps were used at a site, a line transect approach proved less biased than a grid design. Camera trapping should be conducted for at least 3 weeks for more accurate estimates of raccoon population density in our study area (<5% bias). We show that camera-trap data can be used to assign raccoon densities to management-relevant density index bins, but more studies are needed to ensure reliability across a greater range of environmental conditions and raccoon densities.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Wildlife Management publishes manuscripts containing information from original research that contributes to basic wildlife science. Suitable topics include investigations into the biology and ecology of wildlife and their habitats that has direct or indirect implications for wildlife management and conservation. This includes basic information on wildlife habitat use, reproduction, genetics, demographics, viability, predator-prey relationships, space-use, movements, behavior, and physiology; but within the context of contemporary management and conservation issues such that the knowledge may ultimately be useful to wildlife practitioners. Also considered are theoretical and conceptual aspects of wildlife science, including development of new approaches to quantitative analyses, modeling of wildlife populations and habitats, and other topics that are germane to advancing wildlife science. Limited reviews or meta analyses will be considered if they provide a meaningful new synthesis or perspective on an appropriate subject. Direct evaluation of management practices or policies should be sent to the Wildlife Society Bulletin, as should papers reporting new tools or techniques. However, papers that report new tools or techniques, or effects of management practices, within the context of a broader study investigating basic wildlife biology and ecology will be considered by The Journal of Wildlife Management. Book reviews of relevant topics in basic wildlife research and biology.