Application of the Random Encounter Model in citizen science projects to monitor animal densities
Abundance and density are vital metrics for assessing a species’ conservation status and for developing effective management strategies. Remote‐sensing cameras are being used increasingly as part of citizen science projects to monitor wildlife, but current methodologies to monitor densities pose cha...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Remote sensing in ecology and conservation 2020-12, Vol.6 (4), p.514-528 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 528 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 514 |
container_title | Remote sensing in ecology and conservation |
container_volume | 6 |
creator | Schaus, Jessica Uzal, Antonio Gentle, Louise K. Baker, Philip J. Bearman‐Brown, Lucy Bullion, Simone Gazzard, Abigail Lockwood, Hannah North, Alexandra Reader, Tom Scott, Dawn M. Sutherland, Christopher S. Yarnell, Richard W. Rowcliffe, Marcus |
description | Abundance and density are vital metrics for assessing a species’ conservation status and for developing effective management strategies. Remote‐sensing cameras are being used increasingly as part of citizen science projects to monitor wildlife, but current methodologies to monitor densities pose challenges when animals are not individually recognizable. We investigated the use of camera traps and the Random Encounter Model (REM) for estimating the density of West European hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus) within a citizen science framework. We evaluated the use of a simplified version of the REM in terms of the parameters’ estimation (averaged vs. survey‐specific) and assessed its potential application as part of a large‐scale, long‐term citizen science project. We compared averaged REM estimates to those obtained via spatial capture–recapture (SCR) using data from nocturnal spotlight surveys. There was a high degree of concordance in REM‐derived density estimates from averaged parameters versus those derived from survey‐specific parameters. Averaged REM density estimates were also comparable to those produced by SCR at eight out of nine sites; hedgehog density was 7.5 times higher in urban (32.3 km−2) versus rural (4.3 km2) sites. Power analyses indicated that the averaged REM approach would be able to detect a 25% change in hedgehog density in both habitats with >90% power. Furthermore, despite the high start‐up costs associated with the REM method, it would be cost‐effective in the long term. The averaged REM approach is a promising solution to the challenge of large‐scale and long‐term species monitoring. We suggest including the REM as part of a citizen science monitoring project, where participants collect data and researchers verify and implement the required analysis.
We investigate the use of camera traps and the Random Encounter Model (REM) for estimating the density of West European hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus) within a citizen science framework. We evaluate the use of a simplified version of the REM in terms of the parameters’ estimation and asses its potential application as part of a large‐scale, long‐term citizen science project. REM density estimates were comparable to those produced by SCR at eight out of nine sites; hedgehog density was 7.5 times higher in urban (32.3 km−2) versus rural (4.3 km2) sites. Power analysis indicate that REM would be able to detect a 25% change in hedgehog density in both habitats with >90% power, and could be |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/rse2.153 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2473380631</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2473380631</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3273-5f8154388cf2ffbca45f64f9bc83a900e88f829f0d27850e158d797b362e909f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10E1LAzEQBuAgCpZa8CcEvHjZmo_NbvZYSv2AilD1HNLsBFO2yZqkSP317lIPXjzNHB5mXl6ErimZU0LYXUzA5lTwMzRhRFQFL6U4_7NfollKO0IIrVhNazlBetH3nTM6u-BxsDh_AN5o34Y9XnkTDj5DxM-hhQ47j43L7hs8TsaBN4D7GHZgcsI54H3wLoeItXd73eEWfBo0pCt0YXWXYPY7p-j9fvW2fCzWLw9Py8W6MJzVvBBWUlFyKY1l1m6NLoWtSttsjeS6IQSktJI1lrSsloIAFbKtm3rLKwYNaSyfopvT3SHU5wFSVrtwiH54qVhZcy5Jxemgbk_KxJBSBKv6OOSNR0WJGjtUY4dq6HCgxYl-uQ6O_zq1eV2x0f8AYk9yfA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2473380631</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Application of the Random Encounter Model in citizen science projects to monitor animal densities</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</source><creator>Schaus, Jessica ; Uzal, Antonio ; Gentle, Louise K. ; Baker, Philip J. ; Bearman‐Brown, Lucy ; Bullion, Simone ; Gazzard, Abigail ; Lockwood, Hannah ; North, Alexandra ; Reader, Tom ; Scott, Dawn M. ; Sutherland, Christopher S. ; Yarnell, Richard W. ; Rowcliffe, Marcus</creator><contributor>Rowcliffe, Marcus</contributor><creatorcontrib>Schaus, Jessica ; Uzal, Antonio ; Gentle, Louise K. ; Baker, Philip J. ; Bearman‐Brown, Lucy ; Bullion, Simone ; Gazzard, Abigail ; Lockwood, Hannah ; North, Alexandra ; Reader, Tom ; Scott, Dawn M. ; Sutherland, Christopher S. ; Yarnell, Richard W. ; Rowcliffe, Marcus ; Rowcliffe, Marcus</creatorcontrib><description>Abundance and density are vital metrics for assessing a species’ conservation status and for developing effective management strategies. Remote‐sensing cameras are being used increasingly as part of citizen science projects to monitor wildlife, but current methodologies to monitor densities pose challenges when animals are not individually recognizable. We investigated the use of camera traps and the Random Encounter Model (REM) for estimating the density of West European hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus) within a citizen science framework. We evaluated the use of a simplified version of the REM in terms of the parameters’ estimation (averaged vs. survey‐specific) and assessed its potential application as part of a large‐scale, long‐term citizen science project. We compared averaged REM estimates to those obtained via spatial capture–recapture (SCR) using data from nocturnal spotlight surveys. There was a high degree of concordance in REM‐derived density estimates from averaged parameters versus those derived from survey‐specific parameters. Averaged REM density estimates were also comparable to those produced by SCR at eight out of nine sites; hedgehog density was 7.5 times higher in urban (32.3 km−2) versus rural (4.3 km2) sites. Power analyses indicated that the averaged REM approach would be able to detect a 25% change in hedgehog density in both habitats with >90% power. Furthermore, despite the high start‐up costs associated with the REM method, it would be cost‐effective in the long term. The averaged REM approach is a promising solution to the challenge of large‐scale and long‐term species monitoring. We suggest including the REM as part of a citizen science monitoring project, where participants collect data and researchers verify and implement the required analysis.
We investigate the use of camera traps and the Random Encounter Model (REM) for estimating the density of West European hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus) within a citizen science framework. We evaluate the use of a simplified version of the REM in terms of the parameters’ estimation and asses its potential application as part of a large‐scale, long‐term citizen science project. REM density estimates were comparable to those produced by SCR at eight out of nine sites; hedgehog density was 7.5 times higher in urban (32.3 km−2) versus rural (4.3 km2) sites. Power analysis indicate that REM would be able to detect a 25% change in hedgehog density in both habitats with >90% power, and could be implemented as part of citizen science projects.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2056-3485</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2056-3485</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/rse2.153</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Camera traps ; Cameras ; citizen science ; Conservation status ; Data collection ; Density ; density estimation ; Estimates ; Mathematical models ; Methods ; Monitoring ; Parameter estimation ; Polls & surveys ; Remote sensing ; Science ; Scientists ; spatial capture–recapture ; spotlight surveys ; Urban areas ; urban wildlife ; Wildlife ; Wildlife conservation ; Wildlife habitats ; Wildlife management</subject><ispartof>Remote sensing in ecology and conservation, 2020-12, Vol.6 (4), p.514-528</ispartof><rights>2020 The Authors. published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London.</rights><rights>2020. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3273-5f8154388cf2ffbca45f64f9bc83a900e88f829f0d27850e158d797b362e909f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3273-5f8154388cf2ffbca45f64f9bc83a900e88f829f0d27850e158d797b362e909f3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4363-8659 ; 0000-0003-2073-1751 ; 0000-0003-4864-5775 ; 0000-0001-6584-7374 ; 0000-0002-5869-483X ; 0000-0002-2942-3467 ; 0000-0002-9570-2739 ; 0000-0001-6478-1895 ; 0000-0001-7586-8814 ; 0000-0003-0668-5381 ; 0000-0003-0604-7160</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Frse2.153$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Frse2.153$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,864,1417,11562,27924,27925,45574,45575,46052,46476</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Rowcliffe, Marcus</contributor><creatorcontrib>Schaus, Jessica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uzal, Antonio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gentle, Louise K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baker, Philip J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bearman‐Brown, Lucy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bullion, Simone</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gazzard, Abigail</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lockwood, Hannah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>North, Alexandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reader, Tom</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scott, Dawn M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sutherland, Christopher S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yarnell, Richard W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rowcliffe, Marcus</creatorcontrib><title>Application of the Random Encounter Model in citizen science projects to monitor animal densities</title><title>Remote sensing in ecology and conservation</title><description>Abundance and density are vital metrics for assessing a species’ conservation status and for developing effective management strategies. Remote‐sensing cameras are being used increasingly as part of citizen science projects to monitor wildlife, but current methodologies to monitor densities pose challenges when animals are not individually recognizable. We investigated the use of camera traps and the Random Encounter Model (REM) for estimating the density of West European hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus) within a citizen science framework. We evaluated the use of a simplified version of the REM in terms of the parameters’ estimation (averaged vs. survey‐specific) and assessed its potential application as part of a large‐scale, long‐term citizen science project. We compared averaged REM estimates to those obtained via spatial capture–recapture (SCR) using data from nocturnal spotlight surveys. There was a high degree of concordance in REM‐derived density estimates from averaged parameters versus those derived from survey‐specific parameters. Averaged REM density estimates were also comparable to those produced by SCR at eight out of nine sites; hedgehog density was 7.5 times higher in urban (32.3 km−2) versus rural (4.3 km2) sites. Power analyses indicated that the averaged REM approach would be able to detect a 25% change in hedgehog density in both habitats with >90% power. Furthermore, despite the high start‐up costs associated with the REM method, it would be cost‐effective in the long term. The averaged REM approach is a promising solution to the challenge of large‐scale and long‐term species monitoring. We suggest including the REM as part of a citizen science monitoring project, where participants collect data and researchers verify and implement the required analysis.
We investigate the use of camera traps and the Random Encounter Model (REM) for estimating the density of West European hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus) within a citizen science framework. We evaluate the use of a simplified version of the REM in terms of the parameters’ estimation and asses its potential application as part of a large‐scale, long‐term citizen science project. REM density estimates were comparable to those produced by SCR at eight out of nine sites; hedgehog density was 7.5 times higher in urban (32.3 km−2) versus rural (4.3 km2) sites. Power analysis indicate that REM would be able to detect a 25% change in hedgehog density in both habitats with >90% power, and could be implemented as part of citizen science projects.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Camera traps</subject><subject>Cameras</subject><subject>citizen science</subject><subject>Conservation status</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Density</subject><subject>density estimation</subject><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Monitoring</subject><subject>Parameter estimation</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Remote sensing</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Scientists</subject><subject>spatial capture–recapture</subject><subject>spotlight surveys</subject><subject>Urban areas</subject><subject>urban wildlife</subject><subject>Wildlife</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><subject>Wildlife habitats</subject><subject>Wildlife management</subject><issn>2056-3485</issn><issn>2056-3485</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNp10E1LAzEQBuAgCpZa8CcEvHjZmo_NbvZYSv2AilD1HNLsBFO2yZqkSP317lIPXjzNHB5mXl6ErimZU0LYXUzA5lTwMzRhRFQFL6U4_7NfollKO0IIrVhNazlBetH3nTM6u-BxsDh_AN5o34Y9XnkTDj5DxM-hhQ47j43L7hs8TsaBN4D7GHZgcsI54H3wLoeItXd73eEWfBo0pCt0YXWXYPY7p-j9fvW2fCzWLw9Py8W6MJzVvBBWUlFyKY1l1m6NLoWtSttsjeS6IQSktJI1lrSsloIAFbKtm3rLKwYNaSyfopvT3SHU5wFSVrtwiH54qVhZcy5Jxemgbk_KxJBSBKv6OOSNR0WJGjtUY4dq6HCgxYl-uQ6O_zq1eV2x0f8AYk9yfA</recordid><startdate>202012</startdate><enddate>202012</enddate><creator>Schaus, Jessica</creator><creator>Uzal, Antonio</creator><creator>Gentle, Louise K.</creator><creator>Baker, Philip J.</creator><creator>Bearman‐Brown, Lucy</creator><creator>Bullion, Simone</creator><creator>Gazzard, Abigail</creator><creator>Lockwood, Hannah</creator><creator>North, Alexandra</creator><creator>Reader, Tom</creator><creator>Scott, Dawn M.</creator><creator>Sutherland, Christopher S.</creator><creator>Yarnell, Richard W.</creator><creator>Rowcliffe, Marcus</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>SOI</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4363-8659</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2073-1751</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4864-5775</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6584-7374</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5869-483X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2942-3467</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9570-2739</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6478-1895</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7586-8814</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0668-5381</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0604-7160</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202012</creationdate><title>Application of the Random Encounter Model in citizen science projects to monitor animal densities</title><author>Schaus, Jessica ; Uzal, Antonio ; Gentle, Louise K. ; Baker, Philip J. ; Bearman‐Brown, Lucy ; Bullion, Simone ; Gazzard, Abigail ; Lockwood, Hannah ; North, Alexandra ; Reader, Tom ; Scott, Dawn M. ; Sutherland, Christopher S. ; Yarnell, Richard W. ; Rowcliffe, Marcus</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3273-5f8154388cf2ffbca45f64f9bc83a900e88f829f0d27850e158d797b362e909f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Camera traps</topic><topic>Cameras</topic><topic>citizen science</topic><topic>Conservation status</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Density</topic><topic>density estimation</topic><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Monitoring</topic><topic>Parameter estimation</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Remote sensing</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Scientists</topic><topic>spatial capture–recapture</topic><topic>spotlight surveys</topic><topic>Urban areas</topic><topic>urban wildlife</topic><topic>Wildlife</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><topic>Wildlife habitats</topic><topic>Wildlife management</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schaus, Jessica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uzal, Antonio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gentle, Louise K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baker, Philip J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bearman‐Brown, Lucy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bullion, Simone</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gazzard, Abigail</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lockwood, Hannah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>North, Alexandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reader, Tom</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scott, Dawn M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sutherland, Christopher S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yarnell, Richard W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rowcliffe, Marcus</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Wiley Free Content</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Remote sensing in ecology and conservation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schaus, Jessica</au><au>Uzal, Antonio</au><au>Gentle, Louise K.</au><au>Baker, Philip J.</au><au>Bearman‐Brown, Lucy</au><au>Bullion, Simone</au><au>Gazzard, Abigail</au><au>Lockwood, Hannah</au><au>North, Alexandra</au><au>Reader, Tom</au><au>Scott, Dawn M.</au><au>Sutherland, Christopher S.</au><au>Yarnell, Richard W.</au><au>Rowcliffe, Marcus</au><au>Rowcliffe, Marcus</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Application of the Random Encounter Model in citizen science projects to monitor animal densities</atitle><jtitle>Remote sensing in ecology and conservation</jtitle><date>2020-12</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>514</spage><epage>528</epage><pages>514-528</pages><issn>2056-3485</issn><eissn>2056-3485</eissn><abstract>Abundance and density are vital metrics for assessing a species’ conservation status and for developing effective management strategies. Remote‐sensing cameras are being used increasingly as part of citizen science projects to monitor wildlife, but current methodologies to monitor densities pose challenges when animals are not individually recognizable. We investigated the use of camera traps and the Random Encounter Model (REM) for estimating the density of West European hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus) within a citizen science framework. We evaluated the use of a simplified version of the REM in terms of the parameters’ estimation (averaged vs. survey‐specific) and assessed its potential application as part of a large‐scale, long‐term citizen science project. We compared averaged REM estimates to those obtained via spatial capture–recapture (SCR) using data from nocturnal spotlight surveys. There was a high degree of concordance in REM‐derived density estimates from averaged parameters versus those derived from survey‐specific parameters. Averaged REM density estimates were also comparable to those produced by SCR at eight out of nine sites; hedgehog density was 7.5 times higher in urban (32.3 km−2) versus rural (4.3 km2) sites. Power analyses indicated that the averaged REM approach would be able to detect a 25% change in hedgehog density in both habitats with >90% power. Furthermore, despite the high start‐up costs associated with the REM method, it would be cost‐effective in the long term. The averaged REM approach is a promising solution to the challenge of large‐scale and long‐term species monitoring. We suggest including the REM as part of a citizen science monitoring project, where participants collect data and researchers verify and implement the required analysis.
We investigate the use of camera traps and the Random Encounter Model (REM) for estimating the density of West European hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus) within a citizen science framework. We evaluate the use of a simplified version of the REM in terms of the parameters’ estimation and asses its potential application as part of a large‐scale, long‐term citizen science project. REM density estimates were comparable to those produced by SCR at eight out of nine sites; hedgehog density was 7.5 times higher in urban (32.3 km−2) versus rural (4.3 km2) sites. Power analysis indicate that REM would be able to detect a 25% change in hedgehog density in both habitats with >90% power, and could be implemented as part of citizen science projects.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><doi>10.1002/rse2.153</doi><tpages>15</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4363-8659</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2073-1751</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4864-5775</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6584-7374</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5869-483X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2942-3467</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9570-2739</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6478-1895</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7586-8814</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0668-5381</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0604-7160</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2056-3485 |
ispartof | Remote sensing in ecology and conservation, 2020-12, Vol.6 (4), p.514-528 |
issn | 2056-3485 2056-3485 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2473380631 |
source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Access via Wiley Online Library; Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection) |
subjects | Accuracy Camera traps Cameras citizen science Conservation status Data collection Density density estimation Estimates Mathematical models Methods Monitoring Parameter estimation Polls & surveys Remote sensing Science Scientists spatial capture–recapture spotlight surveys Urban areas urban wildlife Wildlife Wildlife conservation Wildlife habitats Wildlife management |
title | Application of the Random Encounter Model in citizen science projects to monitor animal densities |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T05%3A16%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Application%20of%20the%20Random%20Encounter%20Model%20in%20citizen%20science%20projects%20to%20monitor%20animal%20densities&rft.jtitle=Remote%20sensing%20in%20ecology%20and%20conservation&rft.au=Schaus,%20Jessica&rft.date=2020-12&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=514&rft.epage=528&rft.pages=514-528&rft.issn=2056-3485&rft.eissn=2056-3485&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/rse2.153&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2473380631%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2473380631&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |