How many sequences should I track when applying the random encounter model to camera trap data?
The random encounter model (REM) is a camera trapping method to estimate population density (i.e. number of individuals per unit area) without the need for individual recognition. The REM can be applied considering camera trap data only by tracking the passages of animals in front of the camera (i.e...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of zoology (1987) 2024-10, Vol.324 (2), p.155-162 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 162 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 155 |
container_title | Journal of zoology (1987) |
container_volume | 324 |
creator | Palencia, P. Barroso, P. |
description | The random encounter model (REM) is a camera trapping method to estimate population density (i.e. number of individuals per unit area) without the need for individual recognition. The REM can be applied considering camera trap data only by tracking the passages of animals in front of the camera (i.e. sequences). However, it has not been assessed how the number of sequences tracked (i.e. trajectory of the animal reconstructed) influences the REM estimates. In this context, we aimed to gain further insights into the relationship between the number of sequences tracked and reliability in REM estimates to optimize its applicability. We monitored multiple species using camera traps, and we applied REM to estimate population density. We considered red fox Vulpes vulpes, roe deer Capreolus capreolus, fallow deer Dama dama, red deer Cervus elaphus and wild boar Sus scrofa as model species. We tracked from a minimum of 154 (red fox) to a maximum of 527 (red deer) sequences per species, and we then sampled the dataset to simulate different scenarios in which a lower number of sequences were tracked (20, 40, 80 and 160). We also assessed the effect of adjusting the survey period to the minimum necessary to record the desired number of sequences. Our results suggest that tracking around 100 sequences returns a precision level equivalent to the one obtained by tracking a considerably higher number of sequences and reduced and optimized the human effort necessary to apply REM. Tracking less than 40 sequences could result in low precise density estimates. Our results also highlighted the relevance of considering study periods of ca. 2 months to increase the number of sequences recorded and tracking a random sample of them. Our results contribute to the optimization and harmonization of REM as a reference method to estimate wildlife population density without the need for individual identification. We make clear recommendations on the cost‐effective sample size for estimating REM parameters, optimizing the human effort when applying REM, and discouraging REM applications based on low sample sizes.
This study focused on random encounter model (REM) optimization for camera trap data. We concluded that reconstructing the trajectory of around 100 animals crossing the field of view of the camera returned equivalent precision to the one obtained by tracking a considerably higher number of sequences. Survey periods of ca. 2 months are also recommended. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/jzo.13204 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_3122146183</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3122146183</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2224-2ff69fae66726a3e2551191a39b9bd7d9a9fb88ef4cf08206b0651c8dd1247873</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kL1OwzAURi0EEqUw8AaWmBjS2k7i2BNCFaVFlbrAwmI5_qEtSRzsRFV4elzCyl3ucr579R0AbjGa4Tjzw7eb4ZSg7AxMcEZ5UnDOzsEE8ZwkLKX8ElyFcECI4KzIJ0Cs3BHWshlgMF-9aZQJMOxcX2m4hp2X6hMed6aBsm2rYd98wG5noJeNdjWMtOubznhYO20q2DmoZG28PAVbqGUnH67BhZVVMDd_ewrelk-vi1Wy2T6vF4-bRBFCsoRYS7mVhtKCUJkakucYcyxTXvJSF5pLbkvGjM2URYwgWiKaY8W0xiQrWJFOwd14t_Uu9gidOLjeN_GlSDGJZSlmaaTuR0p5F4I3VrR-X0s_CIzEyZ-I_sSvv8jOR_a4r8zwPyhe3rdj4ge9c3Gc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3122146183</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>How many sequences should I track when applying the random encounter model to camera trap data?</title><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Palencia, P. ; Barroso, P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Palencia, P. ; Barroso, P.</creatorcontrib><description>The random encounter model (REM) is a camera trapping method to estimate population density (i.e. number of individuals per unit area) without the need for individual recognition. The REM can be applied considering camera trap data only by tracking the passages of animals in front of the camera (i.e. sequences). However, it has not been assessed how the number of sequences tracked (i.e. trajectory of the animal reconstructed) influences the REM estimates. In this context, we aimed to gain further insights into the relationship between the number of sequences tracked and reliability in REM estimates to optimize its applicability. We monitored multiple species using camera traps, and we applied REM to estimate population density. We considered red fox Vulpes vulpes, roe deer Capreolus capreolus, fallow deer Dama dama, red deer Cervus elaphus and wild boar Sus scrofa as model species. We tracked from a minimum of 154 (red fox) to a maximum of 527 (red deer) sequences per species, and we then sampled the dataset to simulate different scenarios in which a lower number of sequences were tracked (20, 40, 80 and 160). We also assessed the effect of adjusting the survey period to the minimum necessary to record the desired number of sequences. Our results suggest that tracking around 100 sequences returns a precision level equivalent to the one obtained by tracking a considerably higher number of sequences and reduced and optimized the human effort necessary to apply REM. Tracking less than 40 sequences could result in low precise density estimates. Our results also highlighted the relevance of considering study periods of ca. 2 months to increase the number of sequences recorded and tracking a random sample of them. Our results contribute to the optimization and harmonization of REM as a reference method to estimate wildlife population density without the need for individual identification. We make clear recommendations on the cost‐effective sample size for estimating REM parameters, optimizing the human effort when applying REM, and discouraging REM applications based on low sample sizes.
This study focused on random encounter model (REM) optimization for camera trap data. We concluded that reconstructing the trajectory of around 100 animals crossing the field of view of the camera returned equivalent precision to the one obtained by tracking a considerably higher number of sequences. Survey periods of ca. 2 months are also recommended.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0952-8369</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-7998</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/jzo.13204</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>abundance ; camera trapping ; Cameras ; Cervus elaphus ; Dama dama ; Deer ; Estimates ; Foxes ; Optimization ; Parameter estimation ; Parameter identification ; Population density ; Population studies ; Random sampling ; Sequences ; Sus scrofa ; Tracking ; unmarked ; Wildlife</subject><ispartof>Journal of zoology (1987), 2024-10, Vol.324 (2), p.155-162</ispartof><rights>2024 The Author(s). published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London.</rights><rights>2024. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/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><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2224-2ff69fae66726a3e2551191a39b9bd7d9a9fb88ef4cf08206b0651c8dd1247873</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2928-4241 ; 0000-0002-2431-5029</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fjzo.13204$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fjzo.13204$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27923,27924,45573,45574</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Palencia, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barroso, P.</creatorcontrib><title>How many sequences should I track when applying the random encounter model to camera trap data?</title><title>Journal of zoology (1987)</title><description>The random encounter model (REM) is a camera trapping method to estimate population density (i.e. number of individuals per unit area) without the need for individual recognition. The REM can be applied considering camera trap data only by tracking the passages of animals in front of the camera (i.e. sequences). However, it has not been assessed how the number of sequences tracked (i.e. trajectory of the animal reconstructed) influences the REM estimates. In this context, we aimed to gain further insights into the relationship between the number of sequences tracked and reliability in REM estimates to optimize its applicability. We monitored multiple species using camera traps, and we applied REM to estimate population density. We considered red fox Vulpes vulpes, roe deer Capreolus capreolus, fallow deer Dama dama, red deer Cervus elaphus and wild boar Sus scrofa as model species. We tracked from a minimum of 154 (red fox) to a maximum of 527 (red deer) sequences per species, and we then sampled the dataset to simulate different scenarios in which a lower number of sequences were tracked (20, 40, 80 and 160). We also assessed the effect of adjusting the survey period to the minimum necessary to record the desired number of sequences. Our results suggest that tracking around 100 sequences returns a precision level equivalent to the one obtained by tracking a considerably higher number of sequences and reduced and optimized the human effort necessary to apply REM. Tracking less than 40 sequences could result in low precise density estimates. Our results also highlighted the relevance of considering study periods of ca. 2 months to increase the number of sequences recorded and tracking a random sample of them. Our results contribute to the optimization and harmonization of REM as a reference method to estimate wildlife population density without the need for individual identification. We make clear recommendations on the cost‐effective sample size for estimating REM parameters, optimizing the human effort when applying REM, and discouraging REM applications based on low sample sizes.
This study focused on random encounter model (REM) optimization for camera trap data. We concluded that reconstructing the trajectory of around 100 animals crossing the field of view of the camera returned equivalent precision to the one obtained by tracking a considerably higher number of sequences. Survey periods of ca. 2 months are also recommended.</description><subject>abundance</subject><subject>camera trapping</subject><subject>Cameras</subject><subject>Cervus elaphus</subject><subject>Dama dama</subject><subject>Deer</subject><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>Foxes</subject><subject>Optimization</subject><subject>Parameter estimation</subject><subject>Parameter identification</subject><subject>Population density</subject><subject>Population studies</subject><subject>Random sampling</subject><subject>Sequences</subject><subject>Sus scrofa</subject><subject>Tracking</subject><subject>unmarked</subject><subject>Wildlife</subject><issn>0952-8369</issn><issn>1469-7998</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kL1OwzAURi0EEqUw8AaWmBjS2k7i2BNCFaVFlbrAwmI5_qEtSRzsRFV4elzCyl3ucr579R0AbjGa4Tjzw7eb4ZSg7AxMcEZ5UnDOzsEE8ZwkLKX8ElyFcECI4KzIJ0Cs3BHWshlgMF-9aZQJMOxcX2m4hp2X6hMed6aBsm2rYd98wG5noJeNdjWMtOubznhYO20q2DmoZG28PAVbqGUnH67BhZVVMDd_ewrelk-vi1Wy2T6vF4-bRBFCsoRYS7mVhtKCUJkakucYcyxTXvJSF5pLbkvGjM2URYwgWiKaY8W0xiQrWJFOwd14t_Uu9gidOLjeN_GlSDGJZSlmaaTuR0p5F4I3VrR-X0s_CIzEyZ-I_sSvv8jOR_a4r8zwPyhe3rdj4ge9c3Gc</recordid><startdate>202410</startdate><enddate>202410</enddate><creator>Palencia, P.</creator><creator>Barroso, P.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>SOI</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2928-4241</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2431-5029</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202410</creationdate><title>How many sequences should I track when applying the random encounter model to camera trap data?</title><author>Palencia, P. ; Barroso, P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2224-2ff69fae66726a3e2551191a39b9bd7d9a9fb88ef4cf08206b0651c8dd1247873</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>abundance</topic><topic>camera trapping</topic><topic>Cameras</topic><topic>Cervus elaphus</topic><topic>Dama dama</topic><topic>Deer</topic><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>Foxes</topic><topic>Optimization</topic><topic>Parameter estimation</topic><topic>Parameter identification</topic><topic>Population density</topic><topic>Population studies</topic><topic>Random sampling</topic><topic>Sequences</topic><topic>Sus scrofa</topic><topic>Tracking</topic><topic>unmarked</topic><topic>Wildlife</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Palencia, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barroso, P.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Wiley Free Content</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of zoology (1987)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Palencia, P.</au><au>Barroso, P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>How many sequences should I track when applying the random encounter model to camera trap data?</atitle><jtitle>Journal of zoology (1987)</jtitle><date>2024-10</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>324</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>155</spage><epage>162</epage><pages>155-162</pages><issn>0952-8369</issn><eissn>1469-7998</eissn><abstract>The random encounter model (REM) is a camera trapping method to estimate population density (i.e. number of individuals per unit area) without the need for individual recognition. The REM can be applied considering camera trap data only by tracking the passages of animals in front of the camera (i.e. sequences). However, it has not been assessed how the number of sequences tracked (i.e. trajectory of the animal reconstructed) influences the REM estimates. In this context, we aimed to gain further insights into the relationship between the number of sequences tracked and reliability in REM estimates to optimize its applicability. We monitored multiple species using camera traps, and we applied REM to estimate population density. We considered red fox Vulpes vulpes, roe deer Capreolus capreolus, fallow deer Dama dama, red deer Cervus elaphus and wild boar Sus scrofa as model species. We tracked from a minimum of 154 (red fox) to a maximum of 527 (red deer) sequences per species, and we then sampled the dataset to simulate different scenarios in which a lower number of sequences were tracked (20, 40, 80 and 160). We also assessed the effect of adjusting the survey period to the minimum necessary to record the desired number of sequences. Our results suggest that tracking around 100 sequences returns a precision level equivalent to the one obtained by tracking a considerably higher number of sequences and reduced and optimized the human effort necessary to apply REM. Tracking less than 40 sequences could result in low precise density estimates. Our results also highlighted the relevance of considering study periods of ca. 2 months to increase the number of sequences recorded and tracking a random sample of them. Our results contribute to the optimization and harmonization of REM as a reference method to estimate wildlife population density without the need for individual identification. We make clear recommendations on the cost‐effective sample size for estimating REM parameters, optimizing the human effort when applying REM, and discouraging REM applications based on low sample sizes.
This study focused on random encounter model (REM) optimization for camera trap data. We concluded that reconstructing the trajectory of around 100 animals crossing the field of view of the camera returned equivalent precision to the one obtained by tracking a considerably higher number of sequences. Survey periods of ca. 2 months are also recommended.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/jzo.13204</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2928-4241</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2431-5029</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0952-8369 |
ispartof | Journal of zoology (1987), 2024-10, Vol.324 (2), p.155-162 |
issn | 0952-8369 1469-7998 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_3122146183 |
source | Wiley Online Library All Journals |
subjects | abundance camera trapping Cameras Cervus elaphus Dama dama Deer Estimates Foxes Optimization Parameter estimation Parameter identification Population density Population studies Random sampling Sequences Sus scrofa Tracking unmarked Wildlife |
title | How many sequences should I track when applying the random encounter model to camera trap data? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T14%3A51%3A50IST&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=How%20many%20sequences%20should%20I%20track%20when%20applying%20the%20random%20encounter%20model%20to%20camera%20trap%20data?&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20zoology%20(1987)&rft.au=Palencia,%20P.&rft.date=2024-10&rft.volume=324&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=155&rft.epage=162&rft.pages=155-162&rft.issn=0952-8369&rft.eissn=1469-7998&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/jzo.13204&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3122146183%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=3122146183&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |