Cargando…

Testing the consistency of wildlife data types before combining them: the case of camera traps and telemetry

Wildlife data gathered by different monitoring techniques are often combined to estimate animal density. However, methods to check whether different types of data provide consistent information (i.e., can information from one data type be used to predict responses in the other?) before combining the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Popescu, Viorel D, Valpine, Perry, Sweitzer, Rick A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997311/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24772272
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.997
_version_ 1782313167988195328
author Popescu, Viorel D
Valpine, Perry
Sweitzer, Rick A
author_facet Popescu, Viorel D
Valpine, Perry
Sweitzer, Rick A
author_sort Popescu, Viorel D
collection PubMed
description Wildlife data gathered by different monitoring techniques are often combined to estimate animal density. However, methods to check whether different types of data provide consistent information (i.e., can information from one data type be used to predict responses in the other?) before combining them are lacking. We used generalized linear models and generalized linear mixed-effects models to relate camera trap probabilities for marked animals to independent space use from telemetry relocations using 2 years of data for fishers (Pekania pennanti) as a case study. We evaluated (1) camera trap efficacy by estimating how camera detection probabilities are related to nearby telemetry relocations and (2) whether home range utilization density estimated from telemetry data adequately predicts camera detection probabilities, which would indicate consistency of the two data types. The number of telemetry relocations within 250 and 500 m from camera traps predicted detection probability well. For the same number of relocations, females were more likely to be detected during the first year. During the second year, all fishers were more likely to be detected during the fall/winter season. Models predicting camera detection probability and photo counts solely from telemetry utilization density had the best or nearly best Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), suggesting that telemetry and camera traps provide consistent information on space use. Given the same utilization density, males were more likely to be photo-captured due to larger home ranges and higher movement rates. Although methods that combine data types (spatially explicit capture–recapture) make simple assumptions about home range shapes, it is reasonable to conclude that in our case, camera trap data do reflect space use in a manner consistent with telemetry data. However, differences between the 2 years of data suggest that camera efficacy is not fully consistent across ecological conditions and make the case for integrating other sources of space-use data.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3997311
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39973112014-04-25 Testing the consistency of wildlife data types before combining them: the case of camera traps and telemetry Popescu, Viorel D Valpine, Perry Sweitzer, Rick A Ecol Evol Original Research Wildlife data gathered by different monitoring techniques are often combined to estimate animal density. However, methods to check whether different types of data provide consistent information (i.e., can information from one data type be used to predict responses in the other?) before combining them are lacking. We used generalized linear models and generalized linear mixed-effects models to relate camera trap probabilities for marked animals to independent space use from telemetry relocations using 2 years of data for fishers (Pekania pennanti) as a case study. We evaluated (1) camera trap efficacy by estimating how camera detection probabilities are related to nearby telemetry relocations and (2) whether home range utilization density estimated from telemetry data adequately predicts camera detection probabilities, which would indicate consistency of the two data types. The number of telemetry relocations within 250 and 500 m from camera traps predicted detection probability well. For the same number of relocations, females were more likely to be detected during the first year. During the second year, all fishers were more likely to be detected during the fall/winter season. Models predicting camera detection probability and photo counts solely from telemetry utilization density had the best or nearly best Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), suggesting that telemetry and camera traps provide consistent information on space use. Given the same utilization density, males were more likely to be photo-captured due to larger home ranges and higher movement rates. Although methods that combine data types (spatially explicit capture–recapture) make simple assumptions about home range shapes, it is reasonable to conclude that in our case, camera trap data do reflect space use in a manner consistent with telemetry data. However, differences between the 2 years of data suggest that camera efficacy is not fully consistent across ecological conditions and make the case for integrating other sources of space-use data. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 2014-04 2014-02-24 /pmc/articles/PMC3997311/ /pubmed/24772272 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.997 Text en © 2014 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Popescu, Viorel D
Valpine, Perry
Sweitzer, Rick A
Testing the consistency of wildlife data types before combining them: the case of camera traps and telemetry
title Testing the consistency of wildlife data types before combining them: the case of camera traps and telemetry
title_full Testing the consistency of wildlife data types before combining them: the case of camera traps and telemetry
title_fullStr Testing the consistency of wildlife data types before combining them: the case of camera traps and telemetry
title_full_unstemmed Testing the consistency of wildlife data types before combining them: the case of camera traps and telemetry
title_short Testing the consistency of wildlife data types before combining them: the case of camera traps and telemetry
title_sort testing the consistency of wildlife data types before combining them: the case of camera traps and telemetry
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997311/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24772272
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.997
work_keys_str_mv AT popescuvioreld testingtheconsistencyofwildlifedatatypesbeforecombiningthemthecaseofcameratrapsandtelemetry
AT valpineperry testingtheconsistencyofwildlifedatatypesbeforecombiningthemthecaseofcameratrapsandtelemetry
AT sweitzerricka testingtheconsistencyofwildlifedatatypesbeforecombiningthemthecaseofcameratrapsandtelemetry