IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v350y2017icp79-86.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying the bias in density estimated from distance sampling and camera trapping of unmarked individuals

Author

Listed:
  • Chauvenet, Alienor L.M.
  • Gill, Robin M.A.
  • Smith, Graham C.
  • Ward, Alastair I.
  • Massei, Giovanna

Abstract

Population size estimates are an integral part of any species conservation or management project. They are often used to evaluate the impact of management intervention and can be critical for making decisions for future management. Distance sampling and camera trapping of unmarked populations are commonly used for such a task as they can yield rapid and relatively inexpensive estimates of density. Yet, while accuracy is key for decision-making, the potential bias associated with densities estimated with each method have seldom been investigated and compared. We built a spatially-explicit individual based model to investigate the accuracy and precision of both monitoring techniques in estimating known densities. We used the wild boar population of the Forest of Dean, UK, as a case study because both methods have been employed in situ and offer the chance of using real life parameters in the model. Moreover, this is an introduced species in the UK that has the potential to impact natural and agricultural ecosystems. Therefore, improving the accuracy of density estimates is a priority for the species’ management. We found that both distance sampling and camera trapping produce biased density estimates for unmarked populations. Despite large uncertainties, distance sampling estimates were on average closer to known densities than those from camera trapping, and robust to group size. Camera trapping estimates were highly sensitive to group size but could be improved with better survey design. This is the first time that the amount of bias associated with each method is quantified. Our model could be used to correct estimated field-based densities from distance sampling and camera trapping of wild boar and other species with similar life-history traits. Our work serves to increase confidence in the results produced by these two commonly-used methods, ensuring they can in turn be relied upon by wildlife managers and conservationists.

Suggested Citation

  • Chauvenet, Alienor L.M. & Gill, Robin M.A. & Smith, Graham C. & Ward, Alastair I. & Massei, Giovanna, 2017. "Quantifying the bias in density estimated from distance sampling and camera trapping of unmarked individuals," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 350(C), pages 79-86.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:350:y:2017:i:c:p:79-86
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.02.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438001730145X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.02.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. S. T. Buckland & I. B. J. Goudie & D. L. Borchers, 2000. "Wildlife Population Assessment: Past Developments and Future Directions," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 56(1), pages 1-12, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jennifer B Smith & Bryan S Stevens & Dwayne R Etter & David M Williams, 2020. "Performance of spatial capture-recapture models with repurposed data: Assessing estimator robustness for retrospective applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-16, August.
    2. Devin S. Johnson & Jennifer A. Hoeting, 2003. "Autoregressive Models for Capture-Recapture Data: A Bayesian Approach," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 59(2), pages 341-350, June.
    3. I. B. J. Goudie & M. Goudie, 2007. "Who captures the marks for the Petersen estimator?," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 170(3), pages 825-839, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:350:y:2017:i:c:p:79-86. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.