Sitka Black-tailed Deer Camera trap data for density estimation from Afognak Island, Alaska
One of the most difficult challenges for wildlife managers is reliably estimating wildlife populations. Camera traps combined with spatial capture-recapture (SCR) models are a popular tool for population estimation. They have limitations, however, including long data processing times. Drones with th...
Gespeichert in:
1. Verfasser: | |
---|---|
Format: | Dataset |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | One of the most difficult challenges for wildlife managers is reliably
estimating wildlife populations. Camera traps combined with spatial
capture-recapture (SCR) models are a popular tool for population
estimation. They have limitations, however, including long data processing
times. Drones with thermal imagery are an emerging tool for estimating
wildlife populations, but how they compare to other methods remains poorly
studied. We compared the use of camera traps and SCR models to drone
surveys for estimating population densities of Sitka black-tailed deer
(Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis) on Afognak Island, Alaska. We deployed 26
camera traps from 1 September until 6 October 2022 and individually
identified males using antler characteristics, for the SCR model. At the
same site, we conducted three drone surveys between October and December
2022, identified sex composition, and obtained deer counts. The estimated
density from the SCR model was 3.7 males ± 0.8 (SE) /km2, and 14.1 ± 3.1
adults/km2 of clear-cut forest. Results from the drone survey produced
similar estimates with 2.1 ± 0.9 males/km2 and 13.4 ± 1.6 adults / km2.
The similarity in estimates suggests that both methods converged on an
accurate representation of the population in this habitat, but these
methods diverge in levels of sampling effort, duration, and financial
cost. Camera traps offer further insights on behavior and home-range size
but require longer data processing times, can be subject to malfunctions,
and are difficult to deploy and maintain in remote areas. Drones are
subject to legal restrictions, have difficulty in closed canopy habitats,
and can be initially costly, but they provide results faster and require
less data analysis. Camera traps and drones are useful for determining
population dynamics but are subject to their limitations. Wildlife
managers should make survey decisions based on their specific goals,
habitat type, focal species ecology, and financial limitations. |
---|---|
DOI: | 10.5061/dryad.brv15dvk2 |