Joshua H. Schmidt, William L. Thompson, Tammy L. Wilson, Joel H. Reynolds
Wildlife population estimators often require formal adjustment for imperfect detection of individuals during surveys. Conventional distance sampling (CDS) and its extensions (mark-recapture distance sampling [MRDS], temporary emigration distance sampling [TEDS]) are popular approaches for producing unbiased estimators of wildlife abundance. However, despite extensive discussion and development of distance sampling theory in the literature, deciding which of these alternatives is most appropriate for a particular scenario can be confusing. Some of this confusion may stem from an incomplete understanding of how each approach addresses the components of the detection process. Here we describe the proper application of CDS, MRDS, and TEDS approaches and use applied examples to help clarify their differing assumptions with respect to the components of the detection process. To further aid the practitioner, we summarize the differences in a decision tree that can be used to identify cases where a more complex alternative (e.g., MRDS or TEDS) may be appropriate for a given survey application. Although the more complex approaches can account for additional sources of bias, in practical applications one also must consider estimator precision. Therefore, we also review the concept of total estimator error in the context of comparing competing methods for a given application to aid in the selection of the most appropriate distance sampling approach. Finally, we detail how the use of more advanced techniques (i.e., informed priors, open-population distance sampling models, and integrated modeling approaches) can further reduce total estimator error by leveraging information from existing and ongoing data collection. By synthesizing the existing literature on CDS, MRDS, TEDS and their extensions, in conjunction with the concepts of total estimator error and the components of the detection process, we provide a comprehensive guide that can be used by the practitioner to more efficiently, effectively, and appropriately apply distance sampling in a variety of settings.
{"title":"Distance sampling surveys: using components of detection and total error to select among approaches","authors":"Joshua H. Schmidt, William L. Thompson, Tammy L. Wilson, Joel H. Reynolds","doi":"10.1002/wmon.1070","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wmon.1070","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Wildlife population estimators often require formal adjustment for imperfect detection of individuals during surveys. Conventional distance sampling (CDS) and its extensions (mark-recapture distance sampling [MRDS], temporary emigration distance sampling [TEDS]) are popular approaches for producing unbiased estimators of wildlife abundance. However, despite extensive discussion and development of distance sampling theory in the literature, deciding which of these alternatives is most appropriate for a particular scenario can be confusing. Some of this confusion may stem from an incomplete understanding of how each approach addresses the components of the detection process. Here we describe the proper application of CDS, MRDS, and TEDS approaches and use applied examples to help clarify their differing assumptions with respect to the components of the detection process. To further aid the practitioner, we summarize the differences in a decision tree that can be used to identify cases where a more complex alternative (e.g., MRDS or TEDS) may be appropriate for a given survey application. Although the more complex approaches can account for additional sources of bias, in practical applications one also must consider estimator precision. Therefore, we also review the concept of total estimator error in the context of comparing competing methods for a given application to aid in the selection of the most appropriate distance sampling approach. Finally, we detail how the use of more advanced techniques (i.e., informed priors, open-population distance sampling models, and integrated modeling approaches) can further reduce total estimator error by leveraging information from existing and ongoing data collection. By synthesizing the existing literature on CDS, MRDS, TEDS and their extensions, in conjunction with the concepts of total estimator error and the components of the detection process, we provide a comprehensive guide that can be used by the practitioner to more efficiently, effectively, and appropriately apply distance sampling in a variety of settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":235,"journal":{"name":"Wildlife Monographs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2022-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"5687939","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We investigated effects of regulated hunting on a puma (Puma concolor) population on the Uncompahgre Plateau (UPSA) in southwestern Colorado, USA. We examined the hypothesis that an annual harvest rate averaging 15% of the estimated number of independent individuals using the study area would result in a stable or increasing abundance of independent pumas. We predicted hunting mortality would be compensated by 1) a reduction in other causes of mortality, thus overall survival would stay the same or increase; 2) increased reproduction rates; or 3) increased recruitment of young animals. The study occurred over 10 years (2004–2014) and was designed with a reference period (years 1–5; i.e., RY1–RY5) without puma hunting and a treatment period (years 6–10; i.e., TY1–TY5) with hunting. We captured and marked pumas on the UPSA and monitored them year-round to examine their demographics, reproduction, and movements. We estimated abundance of independent animals using the UPSA each winter during the Colorado hunting season from reference year 2 (RY2) to treatment year 5 (TY5) using the Lincoln-Petersen method. In addition, we surveyed hunters to investigate how their behavior influenced harvest and the population. We captured and marked 110 and 116 unique pumas in the reference and treatment periods, respectively, during 440 total capture events. Those animals produced known-fate data for 75 adults, 75 subadults, and 118 cubs, which we used to estimate sex- and life stage-specific survival rates. In the reference period, independent pumas more than doubled in abundance and exhibited high survival. Natural mortality was the major cause of death to independent individuals, followed by other human causes (e.g., vehicle strikes, depredation control). In the treatment period, hunters killed 35 independent pumas and captured and released 30 others on the UPSA. Abundance of independent pumas using the UPSA declined 35% after 4 years of hunting with harvest rates averaging 15% annually. Harvest rates at the population scale, including marked independent pumas with home ranges exclusively on the UPSA, overlapping the UPSA, and on adjacent management units were higher, averaging 22% annually in the same 4 years leading to the population decline. Adult females comprised 21% of the total harvest. The top-ranked model explaining variation in adult survival () indicated a period effect interacting with sex. Annual adult male survival was higher in the reference period ( = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.75–0.99) than in the treatment period ( = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.22–0.57). Annual adult female survival was 0.86 (95% CI = 0.72–0.94) in the reference period and 0.74 (95% CI = 0.63–0.82) in the treatment period. The top subadult model showed that female subadult survival was constant across the reference and treatment periods ( = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.43–0.84), whereas survival of subadult males exhibited the same trend as that of adult males: higher in the r
{"title":"Effects of Hunting on a Puma Population in Colorado\u0000 Efectos de la Cacería en una Población de Pumas en Colorado\u0000 Effets de la Chasse sur une Population de Puma au Colorado","authors":"Kenneth A. Logan, Jonathan P. Runge","doi":"10.1002/wmon.1061","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wmon.1061","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We investigated effects of regulated hunting on a puma (<i>Puma concolor</i>) population on the Uncompahgre Plateau (UPSA) in southwestern Colorado, USA. We examined the hypothesis that an annual harvest rate averaging 15% of the estimated number of independent individuals using the study area would result in a stable or increasing abundance of independent pumas. We predicted hunting mortality would be compensated by 1) a reduction in other causes of mortality, thus overall survival would stay the same or increase; 2) increased reproduction rates; or 3) increased recruitment of young animals. The study occurred over 10 years (2004–2014) and was designed with a reference period (years 1–5; i.e., RY1–RY5) without puma hunting and a treatment period (years 6–10; i.e., TY1–TY5) with hunting. We captured and marked pumas on the UPSA and monitored them year-round to examine their demographics, reproduction, and movements. We estimated abundance of independent animals using the UPSA each winter during the Colorado hunting season from reference year 2 (RY2) to treatment year 5 (TY5) using the Lincoln-Petersen method. In addition, we surveyed hunters to investigate how their behavior influenced harvest and the population. We captured and marked 110 and 116 unique pumas in the reference and treatment periods, respectively, during 440 total capture events. Those animals produced known-fate data for 75 adults, 75 subadults, and 118 cubs, which we used to estimate sex- and life stage-specific survival rates. In the reference period, independent pumas more than doubled in abundance and exhibited high survival. Natural mortality was the major cause of death to independent individuals, followed by other human causes (e.g., vehicle strikes, depredation control). In the treatment period, hunters killed 35 independent pumas and captured and released 30 others on the UPSA. Abundance of independent pumas using the UPSA declined 35% after 4 years of hunting with harvest rates averaging 15% annually. Harvest rates at the population scale, including marked independent pumas with home ranges exclusively on the UPSA, overlapping the UPSA, and on adjacent management units were higher, averaging 22% annually in the same 4 years leading to the population decline. Adult females comprised 21% of the total harvest. The top-ranked model explaining variation in adult survival () indicated a period effect interacting with sex. Annual adult male survival was higher in the reference period ( = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.75–0.99) than in the treatment period ( = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.22–0.57). Annual adult female survival was 0.86 (95% CI = 0.72–0.94) in the reference period and 0.74 (95% CI = 0.63–0.82) in the treatment period. The top subadult model showed that female subadult survival was constant across the reference and treatment periods ( = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.43–0.84), whereas survival of subadult males exhibited the same trend as that of adult males: higher in the r","PeriodicalId":235,"journal":{"name":"Wildlife Monographs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2021-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/wmon.1061","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"6134208","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Joseph M. Northrup, Charles R. Anderson Jr., Brian D. Gerber, George Wittemyer
Anthropogenic habitat modification is a major driver of global biodiversity loss. In North America, one of the primary sources of habitat modification over the last 2 decades has been exploration for and production of oil and natural gas (hydrocarbon development), which has led to demographic and behavioral impacts to numerous wildlife species. Developing effective measures to mitigate these impacts has become a critical task for wildlife managers and conservation practitioners. However, this task has been hindered by the difficulties involved in identifying and isolating factors driving population responses. Current research on responses of wildlife to development predominantly quantifies behavior, but it is not always clear how these responses scale to demography and population dynamics. Concomitant assessments of behavior and population-level processes are needed to gain the mechanistic understanding required to develop effective mitigation approaches. We simultaneously assessed the demographic and behavioral responses of a mule deer population to natural gas development on winter range in the Piceance Basin of Colorado, USA, from 2008 to 2015. Notably, this was the period when development declined from high levels of active drilling to only production phase activity (i.e., no drilling). We focused our data collection on 2 contiguous mule deer winter range study areas that experienced starkly different levels of hydrocarbon development within the Piceance Basin.
We assessed mule deer behavioral responses to a range of development features with varying levels of associated human activity by examining habitat selection patterns of nearly 400 individual adult female mule deer. Concurrently, we assessed the demographic and physiological effects of natural gas development by comparing annual adult female and overwinter fawn (6-month-old animals) survival, December fawn mass, adult female late and early winter body fat, age, pregnancy rates, fetal counts, and lactation rates in December between the 2 study areas. Strong differences in habitat selection between the 2 study areas were apparent. Deer in the less-developed study area avoided development during the day and night, and selected habitat presumed to be used for foraging. Deer in the heavily developed study area selected habitat presumed to be used for thermal and security cover to a greater degree. Deer faced with higher densities of development avoided areas with more well pads during the day and responded neutrally or selected for these areas at night. Deer in both study areas showed a strong reduction in use of areas around well pads that were being drilled, which is the phase of energy development associated with the greatest amount of human presence, vehicle traffic, noise, and artificial light. Despite divergent habitat selection patterns, we found no effects of development on individual condition or reproduction and found no differences in a
{"title":"Behavioral and Demographic Responses of Mule Deer to Energy Development on Winter Range","authors":"Joseph M. Northrup, Charles R. Anderson Jr., Brian D. Gerber, George Wittemyer","doi":"10.1002/wmon.1060","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wmon.1060","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Anthropogenic habitat modification is a major driver of global biodiversity loss. In North America, one of the primary sources of habitat modification over the last 2 decades has been exploration for and production of oil and natural gas (hydrocarbon development), which has led to demographic and behavioral impacts to numerous wildlife species. Developing effective measures to mitigate these impacts has become a critical task for wildlife managers and conservation practitioners. However, this task has been hindered by the difficulties involved in identifying and isolating factors driving population responses. Current research on responses of wildlife to development predominantly quantifies behavior, but it is not always clear how these responses scale to demography and population dynamics. Concomitant assessments of behavior and population-level processes are needed to gain the mechanistic understanding required to develop effective mitigation approaches. We simultaneously assessed the demographic and behavioral responses of a mule deer population to natural gas development on winter range in the Piceance Basin of Colorado, USA, from 2008 to 2015. Notably, this was the period when development declined from high levels of active drilling to only production phase activity (i.e., no drilling). We focused our data collection on 2 contiguous mule deer winter range study areas that experienced starkly different levels of hydrocarbon development within the Piceance Basin.</p>\u0000 <p>We assessed mule deer behavioral responses to a range of development features with varying levels of associated human activity by examining habitat selection patterns of nearly 400 individual adult female mule deer. Concurrently, we assessed the demographic and physiological effects of natural gas development by comparing annual adult female and overwinter fawn (6-month-old animals) survival, December fawn mass, adult female late and early winter body fat, age, pregnancy rates, fetal counts, and lactation rates in December between the 2 study areas. Strong differences in habitat selection between the 2 study areas were apparent. Deer in the less-developed study area avoided development during the day and night, and selected habitat presumed to be used for foraging. Deer in the heavily developed study area selected habitat presumed to be used for thermal and security cover to a greater degree. Deer faced with higher densities of development avoided areas with more well pads during the day and responded neutrally or selected for these areas at night. Deer in both study areas showed a strong reduction in use of areas around well pads that were being drilled, which is the phase of energy development associated with the greatest amount of human presence, vehicle traffic, noise, and artificial light. Despite divergent habitat selection patterns, we found no effects of development on individual condition or reproduction and found no differences in a","PeriodicalId":235,"journal":{"name":"Wildlife Monographs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/wmon.1060","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"5699780","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
H. Bryant White, Gordon R. Batcheller, Edward K. Boggess, Clifford L. Brown, Joseph W. Butfiloski, Thomas A. Decker, John D. Erb, Michael W. Fall, David A. Hamilton, Tim L. Hiller, George F. Hubert Jr., Matthew J. Lovallo, John F. Olson, Nathan M. Roberts
Humans have used wild furbearers for various purposes for thousands of years. Today, furbearers are sustainably used by the public for their pelts, leather, bones, glands, meat, or other purposes. In North America, contemporary harvest of furbearers has evolved along with trap technologies and societal concerns, and is now highly regulated and more closely coupled with harvest analysis and population monitoring. Traps and regulated trapping programs provide personal or cultural rewards that can also support conservation, and can assist with advancing ecological knowledge through research, protecting endangered species, restoring populations or habitats, protecting personal property, and enhancing public health and safety. However, animal welfare and trap selectivity remain important topics for furbearer management in North America, as they have for more than a century. A related international challenge to modern furbearer management came with the Wild Fur Regulation by the European Union, which passed in 1991. This regulation prohibited use of foothold traps in many European countries and the importation of furs and manufactured fur products to Europe from countries that allowed use of foothold traps or trapping methods that did not meet internationally agreed-upon humane trapping standards. To address existing national concerns and requirements of the Wild Fur Regulation, the United States and European Union signed a non-binding bilateral understanding that included a commitment by the United States to evaluate trap performance and advance the use of improved traps through development of best management practices (BMPs) for trapping. Our testing followed internationally accepted restraining-trap standards for quantifying injuries and capture efficiency, and we established BMP pass-fail thresholds for these metrics. We also quantified furbearer selectivity, and qualitatively assessed practicality and user safety for each trap, yielding overall species-specific performance profiles for individual trap models. We present performance data for 84 models of restraining traps (6 cage traps, 68 foothold traps, 9 foot-encapsulating traps, and 1 power-activated footsnare) on 19 furbearing species, or 231 trap-species combinations. We conducted post-mortem examinations on 8,566 furbearers captured by trappers. Of the 231 trap model-species combinations tested, we had sufficient data to evaluate 173 combinations, of which about 59% met all BMP criteria. Pooling species, cage traps produced the lowest average injury score (common injuries included tooth breakage), with minimal differences across other trap types; species-specific patterns were generally similar, with the exception of raccoons (Procyon lotor) for which foot-encapsulating traps performed better than other foot-restraining trap types. Padded-jaw foothold traps performed better than standard-jaw models for many species, though often similar to and occasionally worse than offset- or lam
{"title":"Best Management Practices for Trapping Furbearers in the United States\u0000 Mejores prácticas de manejo para atrapar animales de peletería en los Estados Unidos\u0000 Meilleures pratiques de gestion pour le piégeage des animaux à fourrure aux États-Unis","authors":"H. Bryant White, Gordon R. Batcheller, Edward K. Boggess, Clifford L. Brown, Joseph W. Butfiloski, Thomas A. Decker, John D. Erb, Michael W. Fall, David A. Hamilton, Tim L. Hiller, George F. Hubert Jr., Matthew J. Lovallo, John F. Olson, Nathan M. Roberts","doi":"10.1002/wmon.1057","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wmon.1057","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Humans have used wild furbearers for various purposes for thousands of years. Today, furbearers are sustainably used by the public for their pelts, leather, bones, glands, meat, or other purposes. In North America, contemporary harvest of furbearers has evolved along with trap technologies and societal concerns, and is now highly regulated and more closely coupled with harvest analysis and population monitoring. Traps and regulated trapping programs provide personal or cultural rewards that can also support conservation, and can assist with advancing ecological knowledge through research, protecting endangered species, restoring populations or habitats, protecting personal property, and enhancing public health and safety. However, animal welfare and trap selectivity remain important topics for furbearer management in North America, as they have for more than a century. A related international challenge to modern furbearer management came with the Wild Fur Regulation by the European Union, which passed in 1991. This regulation prohibited use of foothold traps in many European countries and the importation of furs and manufactured fur products to Europe from countries that allowed use of foothold traps or trapping methods that did not meet internationally agreed-upon humane trapping standards. To address existing national concerns and requirements of the Wild Fur Regulation, the United States and European Union signed a non-binding bilateral understanding that included a commitment by the United States to evaluate trap performance and advance the use of improved traps through development of best management practices (BMPs) for trapping. Our testing followed internationally accepted restraining-trap standards for quantifying injuries and capture efficiency, and we established BMP pass-fail thresholds for these metrics. We also quantified furbearer selectivity, and qualitatively assessed practicality and user safety for each trap, yielding overall species-specific performance profiles for individual trap models. We present performance data for 84 models of restraining traps (6 cage traps, 68 foothold traps, 9 foot-encapsulating traps, and 1 power-activated footsnare) on 19 furbearing species, or 231 trap-species combinations. We conducted post-mortem examinations on 8,566 furbearers captured by trappers. Of the 231 trap model-species combinations tested, we had sufficient data to evaluate 173 combinations, of which about 59% met all BMP criteria. Pooling species, cage traps produced the lowest average injury score (common injuries included tooth breakage), with minimal differences across other trap types; species-specific patterns were generally similar, with the exception of raccoons (<i>Procyon lotor</i>) for which foot-encapsulating traps performed better than other foot-restraining trap types. Padded-jaw foothold traps performed better than standard-jaw models for many species, though often similar to and occasionally worse than offset- or lam","PeriodicalId":235,"journal":{"name":"Wildlife Monographs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2020-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/wmon.1057","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"6149239","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号