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...
Published in: | Wildlife Biology |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
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 |