Detection Probability of the American Marten (Martes americana) in Michigan’s Lower Peninsula
To accurately manage for the sustainability of wildlife populations, managers must first determine how to locate individuals of a population with great consistency. Determining the efficiency of detection techniques is a challenge, especially when the study species are scarce or elusive. Such is the...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | unknown |
| Published: |
ScholarWorks@GVSU
2020
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/theses/978 https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1982&context=theses |
| Summary: | To accurately manage for the sustainability of wildlife populations, managers must first determine how to locate individuals of a population with great consistency. Determining the efficiency of detection techniques is a challenge, especially when the study species are scarce or elusive. Such is the case with the American marten (Martes americana), a small mustelid found across the Northern United States and Canada. In the lower peninsula of Michigan, marten are considered a species of concern, and the full extent of their range remains unknown. My goal was to test the efficacy of motiontriggered cameras for detecting the presence of American marten in the Manistee National Forest. Marten were live trapped (n=9), fitted with radio collars, and tracked from May 2018 to September 2019 to determine the extent of their home ranges. I then set two, separate, motion-triggered cameras, facing bait sites, within each home range for four weeks to test the probability of detection. Some cameras were set near microsite features (course woody debris, trees with cavities/nests, brush piles), while some cameras were set in randomly generated locations within the home range. Cameras were moved and rebaited after each four-week period and were deployed for a calendar year to test for any differences in detection rates due to seasonality or camera placement. Despite a hypothetical expectation of an approximately 1.0 detection probability, actual probabilities were much lower (0.63), supporting the idea that non-detections should not always be associated with an animal’s absence. Additionally, I found marten were more likely to be detected during the winter (Oct-Mar – 0.68, Apr- Sept – 0.56), when cameras were located in the core of the individuals home range (in core – 0.66, outside core – 0.55), and when camera locations were selected based on microsite characteristics rather than randomly placed (selected – 0.69, random – 0.39). This study reveals that camera traps alone are not efficient enough to consistently confirm a ... |
|---|