scholarly journals Wildlife Population Monitoring

2019 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Isobel Phoebus ◽  
John Boulanger ◽  
Hans Geir Eiken ◽  
Ida Fløystad ◽  
Karen Graham ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin G Wessling ◽  
Martin Surbeck

Wildlife population monitoring depends on accurate counts of individual animals or artefacts of behavior (e.g., nests or dung), but also must account for potential biases in the likelihood to encounter these animals or artefacts. In indirect surveying, which depends largely upon artefacts of behavior, likelihood to encounter indirect signs of a species is derived from both artefact production and decay. Although environmental context as well as behavior contribute to artefact abundance, variability in behaviors relevant to artefact abundance is rarely considered in population estimation. Here we demonstrate how ignoring behavioral variability contributes to overestimation of population size of a highly endangered great ape endemic only to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the bonobo (Pan paniscus). Variability in decay of signs of bonobo presence (i.e., nests) is well documented and linked to environmental determinants. Conversely, a single metric of sign production (i.e., nest construction) is commonly used to estimate bonobo density, assumed to be representative of bonobo nest behavior across all contexts. We estimated nest construction rates from three bonobo groups within the Kokolopori Bonobo Reserve and found that nest construction rates in bonobos to be highly variable across populations as well as seasonal within populations. Failure to account for behavioral variability in nest construction leads to potentially severe degradation in accuracy of bonobo population estimates of abundance, accounting for a likely overestimation of bonobo numbers by 34%, and in the worst cases as high as 80% overestimation. Using bonobo nesting as an example, we demonstrate that failure to account for inter- and intra-population behavioral variation compromises our ability to monitor population change or reliably compare contributors to population decline or persistence. We argue that variation in sign production is but one of several potential ways that behavioral variability can affect conservation monitoring, should be measured across contexts whenever possible, and must be considered in population estimation confidence intervals. With increasing attention to behavioral variability as a potential tool for conservation, conservationists must also account for the impact that behavioral variability across time, space, individuals, and populations can play upon precision and accuracy of wildlife population estimation.


2005 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary W. Witmer

The accurate estimation of wildlife population density is difficult and requires considerable investment of resources and time. Population indices are easier to obtain but are influenced by many unknowns and the relationships to actual population densities are usually unclear. Wildlife biologists, whether in the public or private sector, often find themselves in difficult situations where a resource manager or landowner wants good information, quickly, at low cost, and without clear objectives. In many situations, in addition to establishing clear objectives, a budget and timeframe, a biologist must understand and deal with the reality of many logistical concerns that will make the achievement of the objectives difficult or impossible. The situation is often complicated because the biology and ecology of the species of interest may be poorly understood in the specific setting and the species may be very rare or strongly influenced by current or past human activities. Methods to monitor a wildlife population may need to be tested or validated, extending the time and resources needed to complete the assigned task. In this paper, I discuss many of the challenges faced and the decisions to be made when a biologist is requested to provide useful, timely information on the status of a wildlife population.


Author(s):  
Amir Sadaula ◽  
Yagya Raj Pandeya ◽  
Yogendra Shah ◽  
Dhan Kumar Pant ◽  
Rabin Kadariya

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holly L. Bernardo ◽  
Pati Vitt ◽  
Rachel Goad ◽  
Susanne Masi ◽  
Tiffany M. Knight

Drones ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 9
Author(s):  
Adrien Michez ◽  
Stéphane Broset ◽  
Philippe Lejeune

In the context of global biodiversity loss, wildlife population monitoring is a major challenge. Some innovative techniques such as the use of drones—also called unmanned aerial vehicle/system (UAV/UAS)—offer promising opportunities. The potential of UAS-based wildlife census using high-resolution imagery is now well established for terrestrial mammals or birds that can be seen on images. Nevertheless, the ability of UASs to detect non-conspicuous species, such as small birds below the forest canopy, remains an open question. This issue can be solved with bioacoustics for acoustically active species such as bats and birds. In this context, UASs represent an interesting solution that could be deployed on a larger scale, at lower risk for the operator, and over hard-to-reach locations, such as forest canopies or complex topographies, when compared with traditional protocols (fixed location recorders placed or handled by human operators). In this context, this study proposes a methodological framework to assess the potential of UASs in bioacoustic surveys for birds and bats, using low-cost audible and ultrasound recorders mounted on a low-cost quadcopter UAS (DJI Phantom 3 Pro). The proposed methodological workflow can be straightforwardly replicated in other contexts to test the impact of other UAS bioacoustic recording platforms in relation to the targeted species and the specific UAS design. This protocol allows one to evaluate the sensitivity of UAS approaches through the estimate of the effective detection radius for the different species investigated at several flight heights. The results of this study suggest a strong potential for the bioacoustic monitoring of birds but are more contrasted for bat recordings, mainly due to quadcopter noise (i.e., electronic speed controller (ESC) noise) but also, in a certain manner, to the experimental design (use of a directional speaker with limited call intensity). Technical developments, such as the use of a winch to safely extent the distance between the UAS and the recorder during UAS sound recordings or the development of an innovative platform, such as a plane–blimp hybrid UAS, should make it possible to solve these issues.


Author(s):  
John M. Mola ◽  
Clara Stuligross ◽  
Maureen L. Page ◽  
Danielle Rutkowski ◽  
Neal M. Williams

Abstract Recent bumble bee declines have prompted the development of novel population monitoring tools, including the use of putatively non-lethal tarsal clipping to obtain genetic material. However, the potential side effects of tarsal clipping have only been tested in the worker caste of a single domesticated species, prompting the need to more broadly test whether tarsal clipping negatively affects sampled individuals. To determine if tarsal clipping reduces queen survivorship and colony establishment, we collected wild queens of Bombus vosnesenskii and clipped tarsi from a single leg of half the individuals. We reared captive queens and estimated survivorship and nest establishment success. We also clipped tarsi of workers from a subset of colonies across a range of body sizes. We found no consistent negative effect of clipping on queen survival. In the first year, clipped nest-searching queens suffered heavy mortality, but there was no effect on foraging queens. The following year, we found no effect of clipping on queen survival or establishment. Clipping did not reduce overall worker survival but reduced survivorship for those in the smallest size quartile. Implications for insect conservation Our findings suggest tarsal clipping does not have consistent negative effects on individual survival. However, our results varied with queen behavioral state, year, and worker size, suggesting differences within and among species and interactions with landscape stressors warrant further study. In the interim, we recommend researchers and conservationists minimize the use of tarsal clipping for sensitive species, populations, or small workers except in cases of exceptional scientific need.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document