Comparison of methods for estimating abundance of gopher tortoises

S. Nomani, M. Oli, R. Carthy
{"title":"Comparison of methods for estimating abundance of gopher tortoises","authors":"S. Nomani, M. Oli, R. Carthy","doi":"10.1163/157075408783489167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Estimates of abundance of threatened and endangered species are crucial for monitoring population status and recovery progress. For most wildlife species, multiple abundance estimation methods are available and the choice of method should depend on cost and efficacy. We field-tested the cost and efficacy of line transect, total count, sample count, and double observer methods for estimating abundance of gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) burrows in two habitats that differed in vegetation density (sparse and dense) at the Ordway-Swisher Biological Station in north-central Florida. In the dense vegetation stratum, density of burrows estimated using the line transect method (8.58 ± 0.94 burrows ha−1) was lower than that obtained from the total count method (11.33 burrows ha−1). In the sparse vegetation stratum, estimated burrow density using the line transect method (11.32 ± 1.19 burrows ha−1) was closer to the burrow density obtained from the total count method (13.00 burrows ha−1). Density of burrows estimated using the double observer method was identical to that obtained from the total count method in dense vegetation stratum, but slightly greater than that obtained from the total count method in sparse vegetation stratum. Density of burrows estimated using the sample count method varied widely depending on the proportion of plots sampled. The cost of sampling as well as estimates of burrow density varied with habitat type. The line transect method was the least costly of the methods, and we were able to sample a larger effective area with the same effort. Using burrow cameras and patch occupancy modeling approach, we also estimated the probability of burrow occupancy by gopher tortoises (active: 0.50 ± 0.09; inactive: 0.04 ± 0.04), and used these values to estimate abundance of gopher tortoises. Using estimates of burrow abundance based on the line transect method, density of gopher tortoises was 2.75 ± 0.74 ha−1 in the sparse vegetation stratum. We recommend that gopher tortoise monitoring programs use rigorous methods for estimating burrow abundance (e.g., line transect methods) and the probability of burrow occupancy by gopher tortoises (e.g., patch occupancy modeling approach).","PeriodicalId":55499,"journal":{"name":"Applied Herpetology","volume":"5 1","pages":"13-31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/157075408783489167","citationCount":"32","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Herpetology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/157075408783489167","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 32

Abstract

Estimates of abundance of threatened and endangered species are crucial for monitoring population status and recovery progress. For most wildlife species, multiple abundance estimation methods are available and the choice of method should depend on cost and efficacy. We field-tested the cost and efficacy of line transect, total count, sample count, and double observer methods for estimating abundance of gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) burrows in two habitats that differed in vegetation density (sparse and dense) at the Ordway-Swisher Biological Station in north-central Florida. In the dense vegetation stratum, density of burrows estimated using the line transect method (8.58 ± 0.94 burrows ha−1) was lower than that obtained from the total count method (11.33 burrows ha−1). In the sparse vegetation stratum, estimated burrow density using the line transect method (11.32 ± 1.19 burrows ha−1) was closer to the burrow density obtained from the total count method (13.00 burrows ha−1). Density of burrows estimated using the double observer method was identical to that obtained from the total count method in dense vegetation stratum, but slightly greater than that obtained from the total count method in sparse vegetation stratum. Density of burrows estimated using the sample count method varied widely depending on the proportion of plots sampled. The cost of sampling as well as estimates of burrow density varied with habitat type. The line transect method was the least costly of the methods, and we were able to sample a larger effective area with the same effort. Using burrow cameras and patch occupancy modeling approach, we also estimated the probability of burrow occupancy by gopher tortoises (active: 0.50 ± 0.09; inactive: 0.04 ± 0.04), and used these values to estimate abundance of gopher tortoises. Using estimates of burrow abundance based on the line transect method, density of gopher tortoises was 2.75 ± 0.74 ha−1 in the sparse vegetation stratum. We recommend that gopher tortoise monitoring programs use rigorous methods for estimating burrow abundance (e.g., line transect methods) and the probability of burrow occupancy by gopher tortoises (e.g., patch occupancy modeling approach).
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
估算地鼠龟丰度方法的比较
估计受威胁和濒危物种的丰度对于监测种群状况和恢复进展至关重要。对于大多数野生物种,有多种丰度估算方法可供选择,方法的选择应取决于成本和效果。在佛罗里达州中北部的Ordway-Swisher生物站,我们实地测试了样线法、总计数法、样本计数法和双观察者法估算地鼠龟(Gopherus polyphemus)洞穴丰度的成本和有效性,这些方法在植被密度不同(稀疏和密集)的两个栖息地中使用。在茂密植被层,样线法估算的洞穴密度(8.58±0.94个洞穴ha−1)低于总计数法估算的洞穴密度(11.33个洞穴ha−1)。在稀疏植被层中,样线法估算的洞穴密度(11.32±1.19个洞穴ha−1)更接近总计数法估算的洞穴密度(13.00个洞穴ha−1)。双观察者法估算的洞穴密度与稠密植被层总计数法估算的洞穴密度相同,但略大于稀疏植被层总计数法估算的洞穴密度。使用样本计数法估计的洞穴密度根据采样地块的比例变化很大。采样成本和洞穴密度估算值随生境类型的不同而不同。样线法是成本最低的方法,我们能够以同样的努力取样更大的有效区域。利用地穴摄像机和斑块占用建模方法,我们还估算了地鼠占用地穴的概率(活动:0.50±0.09;非活动:0.04±0.04),并利用这些值估计地鼠龟的丰度。利用样线法估算的地穴丰度,在稀疏植被层中地鼠密度为2.75±0.74 ha−1。我们建议地鼠龟监测程序使用严格的方法来估计洞穴丰度(例如,样线法)和地鼠龟占用洞穴的概率(例如,斑块占用建模方法)。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The first record of Ramphotyphlops braminus from the Isle of Pines, New Caledonia New island records for Tantilla melanocephala (Squamata: Colubridae) on the Grenada Bank Alien Reptiles and Amphibians: A Scientific Compendium and Analysis. The persistence of Anolis trinitatis as a naturalized lizard in Trinidad against hybridization pressure with Anolis aeneus The terrestrial herpetofauna of Martinique: Past, present, future
×
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