Estimating density of mountain hares using distance sampling: a comparison of daylight visual surveys, night-time thermal imaging and camera traps

Surveying cryptic, nocturnal animals is logistically challenging. Consequently, density estimates may be imprecise and uncertain. Survey innovations mitigate ecological and observational difficulties contributing to estimation variance. Thus, comparisons of survey techniques are critical to evaluate...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Wildlife Biology
Main Authors: Bedson, Carlos P. E., Thomas, Lowri, Wheeler, Philip M., Reid, Neil, Harris, W. Edwin, Lloyd, Huw, Mallon, David, Preziosi, Richard
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:unknown
Published: 2021
Subjects:
Online Access:https://oro.open.ac.uk/78324/
https://oro.open.ac.uk/78324/1/78324.pdf
https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00802
id ftopenunivgb:oai:oro.open.ac.uk:78324
record_format openpolar
spelling ftopenunivgb:oai:oro.open.ac.uk:78324 2023-06-11T04:13:50+02:00 Estimating density of mountain hares using distance sampling: a comparison of daylight visual surveys, night-time thermal imaging and camera traps Bedson, Carlos P. E. Thomas, Lowri Wheeler, Philip M. Reid, Neil Harris, W. Edwin Lloyd, Huw Mallon, David Preziosi, Richard 2021 application/pdf https://oro.open.ac.uk/78324/ https://oro.open.ac.uk/78324/1/78324.pdf https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00802 unknown https://oro.open.ac.uk/78324/1/78324.pdf Bedson, Carlos P. E.; Thomas, Lowri; Wheeler, Philip M. <http://oro.open.ac.uk/view/person/pw6864.html>; Reid, Neil; Harris, W. Edwin; Lloyd, Huw; Mallon, David and Preziosi, Richard (2021). Estimating density of mountain hares using distance sampling: a comparison of daylight visual surveys, night-time thermal imaging and camera traps. Wildlife Biology, 2021(3), article no. wlb.00802. Journal Item Public PeerReviewed 2021 ftopenunivgb https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00802 2023-05-28T06:06:04Z Surveying cryptic, nocturnal animals is logistically challenging. Consequently, density estimates may be imprecise and uncertain. Survey innovations mitigate ecological and observational difficulties contributing to estimation variance. Thus, comparisons of survey techniques are critical to evaluate estimates of abundance. We simultaneously compared three methods for observing mountain hare Lepus timidus using Distance sampling to estimate abundance. Daylight visual surveys achieved 41 detections, estimating density at 14.3 hares km –2 (95%CI 6.3–32.5) resulting in the lowest estimate and widest confidence interval. Night-time thermal imaging achieved 206 detections, estimating density at 12.1 hares km –2 (95%CI 7.6–19.4). Thermal imaging captured more observations at furthest distances, and detected larger group sizes. Camera traps achieved 3705 night-time detections, estimating density at 22.6 hares km –2 (95%CI 17.1–29.9). Between the methods, detections were spatially correlated, although the estimates of density varied. Our results suggest that daylight visual surveys tended to underestimate density, failing to reflect nocturnal activity. Thermal imaging captured nocturnal activity, providing a higher detection rate, but required fine weather. Camera traps captured nocturnal activity, and operated 24/7 throughout harsh weather, but needed careful consideration of empirical assumptions. We discuss the merits and limitations of each method with respect to the estimation of population density in the field. Article in Journal/Newspaper Lepus timidus mountain hare The Open University: Open Research Online (ORO) Wildlife Biology 2021 3
institution Open Polar
collection The Open University: Open Research Online (ORO)
op_collection_id ftopenunivgb
language unknown
description Surveying cryptic, nocturnal animals is logistically challenging. Consequently, density estimates may be imprecise and uncertain. Survey innovations mitigate ecological and observational difficulties contributing to estimation variance. Thus, comparisons of survey techniques are critical to evaluate estimates of abundance. We simultaneously compared three methods for observing mountain hare Lepus timidus using Distance sampling to estimate abundance. Daylight visual surveys achieved 41 detections, estimating density at 14.3 hares km –2 (95%CI 6.3–32.5) resulting in the lowest estimate and widest confidence interval. Night-time thermal imaging achieved 206 detections, estimating density at 12.1 hares km –2 (95%CI 7.6–19.4). Thermal imaging captured more observations at furthest distances, and detected larger group sizes. Camera traps achieved 3705 night-time detections, estimating density at 22.6 hares km –2 (95%CI 17.1–29.9). Between the methods, detections were spatially correlated, although the estimates of density varied. Our results suggest that daylight visual surveys tended to underestimate density, failing to reflect nocturnal activity. Thermal imaging captured nocturnal activity, providing a higher detection rate, but required fine weather. Camera traps captured nocturnal activity, and operated 24/7 throughout harsh weather, but needed careful consideration of empirical assumptions. We discuss the merits and limitations of each method with respect to the estimation of population density in the field.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Bedson, Carlos P. E.
Thomas, Lowri
Wheeler, Philip M.
Reid, Neil
Harris, W. Edwin
Lloyd, Huw
Mallon, David
Preziosi, Richard
spellingShingle Bedson, Carlos P. E.
Thomas, Lowri
Wheeler, Philip M.
Reid, Neil
Harris, W. Edwin
Lloyd, Huw
Mallon, David
Preziosi, Richard
Estimating density of mountain hares using distance sampling: a comparison of daylight visual surveys, night-time thermal imaging and camera traps
author_facet Bedson, Carlos P. E.
Thomas, Lowri
Wheeler, Philip M.
Reid, Neil
Harris, W. Edwin
Lloyd, Huw
Mallon, David
Preziosi, Richard
author_sort Bedson, Carlos P. E.
title Estimating density of mountain hares using distance sampling: a comparison of daylight visual surveys, night-time thermal imaging and camera traps
title_short Estimating density of mountain hares using distance sampling: a comparison of daylight visual surveys, night-time thermal imaging and camera traps
title_full Estimating density of mountain hares using distance sampling: a comparison of daylight visual surveys, night-time thermal imaging and camera traps
title_fullStr Estimating density of mountain hares using distance sampling: a comparison of daylight visual surveys, night-time thermal imaging and camera traps
title_full_unstemmed Estimating density of mountain hares using distance sampling: a comparison of daylight visual surveys, night-time thermal imaging and camera traps
title_sort estimating density of mountain hares using distance sampling: a comparison of daylight visual surveys, night-time thermal imaging and camera traps
publishDate 2021
url https://oro.open.ac.uk/78324/
https://oro.open.ac.uk/78324/1/78324.pdf
https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00802
genre Lepus timidus
mountain hare
genre_facet Lepus timidus
mountain hare
op_relation https://oro.open.ac.uk/78324/1/78324.pdf
Bedson, Carlos P. E.; Thomas, Lowri; Wheeler, Philip M. <http://oro.open.ac.uk/view/person/pw6864.html>; Reid, Neil; Harris, W. Edwin; Lloyd, Huw; Mallon, David and Preziosi, Richard (2021). Estimating density of mountain hares using distance sampling: a comparison of daylight visual surveys, night-time thermal imaging and camera traps. Wildlife Biology, 2021(3), article no. wlb.00802.
op_doi https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00802
container_title Wildlife Biology
container_volume 2021
container_issue 3
_version_ 1768391215407955968