Monitoring mesocarnivores with tracks and technology using multi‐method modeling

Mesocarnivores play important ecological roles and are valued by diverse stakeholders. These species are often the focus of conservation efforts or are managed for sustainable harvest. Management actions require accurate population monitoring, but such monitoring is challenging because mesocarnivore...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of wildlife management 2023-05, Vol.87 (4), p.n/a
Hauptverfasser: Moll, Remington J., Butler, Andrew R., Poisson, Mairi K. P., Tate, Patrick, Bergeron, Daniel H., Ellingwood, Mark R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page n/a
container_issue 4
container_start_page
container_title The Journal of wildlife management
container_volume 87
creator Moll, Remington J.
Butler, Andrew R.
Poisson, Mairi K. P.
Tate, Patrick
Bergeron, Daniel H.
Ellingwood, Mark R.
description Mesocarnivores play important ecological roles and are valued by diverse stakeholders. These species are often the focus of conservation efforts or are managed for sustainable harvest. Management actions require accurate population monitoring, but such monitoring is challenging because mesocarnivores are elusive and persist at low densities. We addressed this challenge by evaluating 2 monitoring methods (scent stations and motion‐sensitive cameras) using multi‐method modeling. We estimated occurrence probabilities and habitat relationships for 8 mesocarnivore species by fitting occupancy models to data collected at 75 sites from October to December 2021 across a 3,200‐km2 system in New Hampshire, USA. We assessed the relative estimated precision of the methodological approaches and their costs. We also evaluated tradeoffs in occurrence estimation and uncertainty among study designs by analyzing simulations run across various numbers of study sites and 2 study durations. Cameras cost roughly 10 times more than scent stations but strongly outperformed them in terms of species' detectability and parameter estimate precision. Multi‐method models yielded the most precise estimates of occurrence probability and habitat relationships. Parameter estimates were on average twice as precise for camera and multi‐method models compared to scent stations. Additionally, the estimated precision and direction (positive or negative) of habitat relationships varied with the method employed. Longer camera deployments, additional study sites, and multi‐method approaches nearly always reduced uncertainty, but these reductions were species‐specific and generally most pronounced for more rarely detected species. Overall, our results demonstrate the utility of motion‐sensitive cameras traps for monitoring mesocarnivores while revealing the additional benefits of multi‐method modeling. Our results also provide guidance for designing monitoring programs for mesocarnivores while navigating tradeoffs between study design, cost, and uncertainty. Despite its benefits, multi‐method modeling remains uncommon as a general monitoring approach. We suggest managers consider this approach in light of existing datasets and design monitoring programs that integrate traditional methods with emergent technologies. Managing mesocarnivores requires accurate monitoring information, but such information is often challenging to obtain. We used camera traps and scent stations in a multi‐method model to
doi_str_mv 10.1002/jwmg.22382
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2796702322</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2796702322</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3012-4efc224defed63c6ef60bba35e58ef52a6df7510da06b83cfccd9adf00a3586d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1KAzEURoMoWKsbn2DAnTA1P53MdClFq9IiiKK7kCY3berMpCYZS3c-gs_okzjtuHZ14d5zvw8OQucEDwjG9Gq1qRYDSllBD1CPjFie0oLkh6jXHmmaDcnbMToJYYUxI6TgPfQ0c7WNztt6kVQQnJK-tp_OQ0g2Ni6T6KV6D4msdRJBLWtXusU2acKeb8pof76-K4hLp5PKaSjb_Sk6MrIMcPY3--jl9uZ5fJdOHyf34-tpqhgmNB2CUZQONRjQnCkOhuP5XLIMsgJMRiXXJs8I1hLzecGUUUqPpDYYt0zBNeujiy537d1HAyGKlWt83VYKmo94jilrTfTRZUcp70LwYMTa20r6rSBY7JyJnTOxd9bCpIM3toTtP6R4eJ1Nup9fzfVynQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2796702322</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Monitoring mesocarnivores with tracks and technology using multi‐method modeling</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Moll, Remington J. ; Butler, Andrew R. ; Poisson, Mairi K. P. ; Tate, Patrick ; Bergeron, Daniel H. ; Ellingwood, Mark R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Moll, Remington J. ; Butler, Andrew R. ; Poisson, Mairi K. P. ; Tate, Patrick ; Bergeron, Daniel H. ; Ellingwood, Mark R.</creatorcontrib><description>Mesocarnivores play important ecological roles and are valued by diverse stakeholders. These species are often the focus of conservation efforts or are managed for sustainable harvest. Management actions require accurate population monitoring, but such monitoring is challenging because mesocarnivores are elusive and persist at low densities. We addressed this challenge by evaluating 2 monitoring methods (scent stations and motion‐sensitive cameras) using multi‐method modeling. We estimated occurrence probabilities and habitat relationships for 8 mesocarnivore species by fitting occupancy models to data collected at 75 sites from October to December 2021 across a 3,200‐km2 system in New Hampshire, USA. We assessed the relative estimated precision of the methodological approaches and their costs. We also evaluated tradeoffs in occurrence estimation and uncertainty among study designs by analyzing simulations run across various numbers of study sites and 2 study durations. Cameras cost roughly 10 times more than scent stations but strongly outperformed them in terms of species' detectability and parameter estimate precision. Multi‐method models yielded the most precise estimates of occurrence probability and habitat relationships. Parameter estimates were on average twice as precise for camera and multi‐method models compared to scent stations. Additionally, the estimated precision and direction (positive or negative) of habitat relationships varied with the method employed. Longer camera deployments, additional study sites, and multi‐method approaches nearly always reduced uncertainty, but these reductions were species‐specific and generally most pronounced for more rarely detected species. Overall, our results demonstrate the utility of motion‐sensitive cameras traps for monitoring mesocarnivores while revealing the additional benefits of multi‐method modeling. Our results also provide guidance for designing monitoring programs for mesocarnivores while navigating tradeoffs between study design, cost, and uncertainty. Despite its benefits, multi‐method modeling remains uncommon as a general monitoring approach. We suggest managers consider this approach in light of existing datasets and design monitoring programs that integrate traditional methods with emergent technologies. Managing mesocarnivores requires accurate monitoring information, but such information is often challenging to obtain. We used camera traps and scent stations in a multi‐method model to examine tradeoffs in method type, study duration, and number of research sites. We found that cameras outperformed scent stations and that longer study durations and more sites increased parameter precision, but that these gains were species‐specific.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-541X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1937-2817</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.22382</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bethesda: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Bayesian modeling ; Cameras ; Estimates ; Evaluation ; furbearer ; Habitats ; Mathematical models ; Modelling ; Monitoring ; Monitoring methods ; non‐invasive sampling ; occupancy modeling ; Parameter estimation ; scent station ; Species ; spoor survey ; Sustainable harvest ; Tradeoffs ; Uncertainty ; wildlife‐habitat relationships</subject><ispartof>The Journal of wildlife management, 2023-05, Vol.87 (4), p.n/a</ispartof><rights>2023 The Wildlife Society</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3012-4efc224defed63c6ef60bba35e58ef52a6df7510da06b83cfccd9adf00a3586d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3012-4efc224defed63c6ef60bba35e58ef52a6df7510da06b83cfccd9adf00a3586d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0681-2646</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%2Fjwmg.22382$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fjwmg.22382$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,1412,27905,27906,45555,45556</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Moll, Remington J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Butler, Andrew R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Poisson, Mairi K. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tate, Patrick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bergeron, Daniel H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ellingwood, Mark R.</creatorcontrib><title>Monitoring mesocarnivores with tracks and technology using multi‐method modeling</title><title>The Journal of wildlife management</title><description>Mesocarnivores play important ecological roles and are valued by diverse stakeholders. These species are often the focus of conservation efforts or are managed for sustainable harvest. Management actions require accurate population monitoring, but such monitoring is challenging because mesocarnivores are elusive and persist at low densities. We addressed this challenge by evaluating 2 monitoring methods (scent stations and motion‐sensitive cameras) using multi‐method modeling. We estimated occurrence probabilities and habitat relationships for 8 mesocarnivore species by fitting occupancy models to data collected at 75 sites from October to December 2021 across a 3,200‐km2 system in New Hampshire, USA. We assessed the relative estimated precision of the methodological approaches and their costs. We also evaluated tradeoffs in occurrence estimation and uncertainty among study designs by analyzing simulations run across various numbers of study sites and 2 study durations. Cameras cost roughly 10 times more than scent stations but strongly outperformed them in terms of species' detectability and parameter estimate precision. Multi‐method models yielded the most precise estimates of occurrence probability and habitat relationships. Parameter estimates were on average twice as precise for camera and multi‐method models compared to scent stations. Additionally, the estimated precision and direction (positive or negative) of habitat relationships varied with the method employed. Longer camera deployments, additional study sites, and multi‐method approaches nearly always reduced uncertainty, but these reductions were species‐specific and generally most pronounced for more rarely detected species. Overall, our results demonstrate the utility of motion‐sensitive cameras traps for monitoring mesocarnivores while revealing the additional benefits of multi‐method modeling. Our results also provide guidance for designing monitoring programs for mesocarnivores while navigating tradeoffs between study design, cost, and uncertainty. Despite its benefits, multi‐method modeling remains uncommon as a general monitoring approach. We suggest managers consider this approach in light of existing datasets and design monitoring programs that integrate traditional methods with emergent technologies. Managing mesocarnivores requires accurate monitoring information, but such information is often challenging to obtain. We used camera traps and scent stations in a multi‐method model to examine tradeoffs in method type, study duration, and number of research sites. We found that cameras outperformed scent stations and that longer study durations and more sites increased parameter precision, but that these gains were species‐specific.</description><subject>Bayesian modeling</subject><subject>Cameras</subject><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>furbearer</subject><subject>Habitats</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Modelling</subject><subject>Monitoring</subject><subject>Monitoring methods</subject><subject>non‐invasive sampling</subject><subject>occupancy modeling</subject><subject>Parameter estimation</subject><subject>scent station</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>spoor survey</subject><subject>Sustainable harvest</subject><subject>Tradeoffs</subject><subject>Uncertainty</subject><subject>wildlife‐habitat relationships</subject><issn>0022-541X</issn><issn>1937-2817</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kM1KAzEURoMoWKsbn2DAnTA1P53MdClFq9IiiKK7kCY3berMpCYZS3c-gs_okzjtuHZ14d5zvw8OQucEDwjG9Gq1qRYDSllBD1CPjFie0oLkh6jXHmmaDcnbMToJYYUxI6TgPfQ0c7WNztt6kVQQnJK-tp_OQ0g2Ni6T6KV6D4msdRJBLWtXusU2acKeb8pof76-K4hLp5PKaSjb_Sk6MrIMcPY3--jl9uZ5fJdOHyf34-tpqhgmNB2CUZQONRjQnCkOhuP5XLIMsgJMRiXXJs8I1hLzecGUUUqPpDYYt0zBNeujiy537d1HAyGKlWt83VYKmo94jilrTfTRZUcp70LwYMTa20r6rSBY7JyJnTOxd9bCpIM3toTtP6R4eJ1Nup9fzfVynQ</recordid><startdate>202305</startdate><enddate>202305</enddate><creator>Moll, Remington J.</creator><creator>Butler, Andrew R.</creator><creator>Poisson, Mairi K. P.</creator><creator>Tate, Patrick</creator><creator>Bergeron, Daniel H.</creator><creator>Ellingwood, Mark R.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0681-2646</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202305</creationdate><title>Monitoring mesocarnivores with tracks and technology using multi‐method modeling</title><author>Moll, Remington J. ; Butler, Andrew R. ; Poisson, Mairi K. P. ; Tate, Patrick ; Bergeron, Daniel H. ; Ellingwood, Mark R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3012-4efc224defed63c6ef60bba35e58ef52a6df7510da06b83cfccd9adf00a3586d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Bayesian modeling</topic><topic>Cameras</topic><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>furbearer</topic><topic>Habitats</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Modelling</topic><topic>Monitoring</topic><topic>Monitoring methods</topic><topic>non‐invasive sampling</topic><topic>occupancy modeling</topic><topic>Parameter estimation</topic><topic>scent station</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>spoor survey</topic><topic>Sustainable harvest</topic><topic>Tradeoffs</topic><topic>Uncertainty</topic><topic>wildlife‐habitat relationships</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Moll, Remington J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Butler, Andrew R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Poisson, Mairi K. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tate, Patrick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bergeron, Daniel H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ellingwood, Mark R.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>The Journal of wildlife management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Moll, Remington J.</au><au>Butler, Andrew R.</au><au>Poisson, Mairi K. P.</au><au>Tate, Patrick</au><au>Bergeron, Daniel H.</au><au>Ellingwood, Mark R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Monitoring mesocarnivores with tracks and technology using multi‐method modeling</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of wildlife management</jtitle><date>2023-05</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>87</volume><issue>4</issue><epage>n/a</epage><issn>0022-541X</issn><eissn>1937-2817</eissn><abstract>Mesocarnivores play important ecological roles and are valued by diverse stakeholders. These species are often the focus of conservation efforts or are managed for sustainable harvest. Management actions require accurate population monitoring, but such monitoring is challenging because mesocarnivores are elusive and persist at low densities. We addressed this challenge by evaluating 2 monitoring methods (scent stations and motion‐sensitive cameras) using multi‐method modeling. We estimated occurrence probabilities and habitat relationships for 8 mesocarnivore species by fitting occupancy models to data collected at 75 sites from October to December 2021 across a 3,200‐km2 system in New Hampshire, USA. We assessed the relative estimated precision of the methodological approaches and their costs. We also evaluated tradeoffs in occurrence estimation and uncertainty among study designs by analyzing simulations run across various numbers of study sites and 2 study durations. Cameras cost roughly 10 times more than scent stations but strongly outperformed them in terms of species' detectability and parameter estimate precision. Multi‐method models yielded the most precise estimates of occurrence probability and habitat relationships. Parameter estimates were on average twice as precise for camera and multi‐method models compared to scent stations. Additionally, the estimated precision and direction (positive or negative) of habitat relationships varied with the method employed. Longer camera deployments, additional study sites, and multi‐method approaches nearly always reduced uncertainty, but these reductions were species‐specific and generally most pronounced for more rarely detected species. Overall, our results demonstrate the utility of motion‐sensitive cameras traps for monitoring mesocarnivores while revealing the additional benefits of multi‐method modeling. Our results also provide guidance for designing monitoring programs for mesocarnivores while navigating tradeoffs between study design, cost, and uncertainty. Despite its benefits, multi‐method modeling remains uncommon as a general monitoring approach. We suggest managers consider this approach in light of existing datasets and design monitoring programs that integrate traditional methods with emergent technologies. Managing mesocarnivores requires accurate monitoring information, but such information is often challenging to obtain. We used camera traps and scent stations in a multi‐method model to examine tradeoffs in method type, study duration, and number of research sites. We found that cameras outperformed scent stations and that longer study durations and more sites increased parameter precision, but that these gains were species‐specific.</abstract><cop>Bethesda</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1002/jwmg.22382</doi><tpages>19</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0681-2646</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-541X
ispartof The Journal of wildlife management, 2023-05, Vol.87 (4), p.n/a
issn 0022-541X
1937-2817
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2796702322
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Bayesian modeling
Cameras
Estimates
Evaluation
furbearer
Habitats
Mathematical models
Modelling
Monitoring
Monitoring methods
non‐invasive sampling
occupancy modeling
Parameter estimation
scent station
Species
spoor survey
Sustainable harvest
Tradeoffs
Uncertainty
wildlife‐habitat relationships
title Monitoring mesocarnivores with tracks and technology using multi‐method modeling
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T13%3A56%3A28IST&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=Monitoring%20mesocarnivores%20with%20tracks%20and%20technology%20using%20multi%E2%80%90method%20modeling&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20wildlife%20management&rft.au=Moll,%20Remington%20J.&rft.date=2023-05&rft.volume=87&rft.issue=4&rft.epage=n/a&rft.issn=0022-541X&rft.eissn=1937-2817&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/jwmg.22382&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2796702322%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=2796702322&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true