Cargando…

Estimating wildlife activity curves: comparison of methods and sample size

Camera traps and radiotags commonly are used to estimate animal activity curves. However, little empirical evidence has been provided to validate whether they produce similar results. We compared activity curves from two common camera trapping techniques to those from radiotags with four species tha...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lashley, Marcus A., Cove, Michael V., Chitwood, M. Colter, Penido, Gabriel, Gardner, Beth, DePerno, Chris S., Moorman, Chris E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5843653/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29520029
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22638-6
_version_ 1783305109982150656
author Lashley, Marcus A.
Cove, Michael V.
Chitwood, M. Colter
Penido, Gabriel
Gardner, Beth
DePerno, Chris S.
Moorman, Chris E.
author_facet Lashley, Marcus A.
Cove, Michael V.
Chitwood, M. Colter
Penido, Gabriel
Gardner, Beth
DePerno, Chris S.
Moorman, Chris E.
author_sort Lashley, Marcus A.
collection PubMed
description Camera traps and radiotags commonly are used to estimate animal activity curves. However, little empirical evidence has been provided to validate whether they produce similar results. We compared activity curves from two common camera trapping techniques to those from radiotags with four species that varied substantially in size (~1 kg–~50 kg), diet (herbivore, omnivore, carnivore), and mode of activity (diurnal and crepuscular). Also, we sub-sampled photographs of each species with each camera trapping technique to determine the minimum sample size needed to maintain accuracy and precision of estimates. Camera trapping estimated greater activity during feeding times than radiotags in all but the carnivore, likely reflective of the close proximity of foods readily consumed by all species except the carnivore (i.e., corn bait or acorns). However, additional analyses still indicated both camera trapping methods produced relatively high overlap and correlation to radiotags. Regardless of species or camera trapping method, mean overlap increased and overlap error decreased rapidly as sample sizes increased until an asymptote near 100 detections which we therefore recommend as a minimum sample size. Researchers should acknowledge that camera traps and radiotags may estimate the same mode of activity but differ in their estimation of magnitude in activity peaks.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5843653
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58436532018-03-14 Estimating wildlife activity curves: comparison of methods and sample size Lashley, Marcus A. Cove, Michael V. Chitwood, M. Colter Penido, Gabriel Gardner, Beth DePerno, Chris S. Moorman, Chris E. Sci Rep Article Camera traps and radiotags commonly are used to estimate animal activity curves. However, little empirical evidence has been provided to validate whether they produce similar results. We compared activity curves from two common camera trapping techniques to those from radiotags with four species that varied substantially in size (~1 kg–~50 kg), diet (herbivore, omnivore, carnivore), and mode of activity (diurnal and crepuscular). Also, we sub-sampled photographs of each species with each camera trapping technique to determine the minimum sample size needed to maintain accuracy and precision of estimates. Camera trapping estimated greater activity during feeding times than radiotags in all but the carnivore, likely reflective of the close proximity of foods readily consumed by all species except the carnivore (i.e., corn bait or acorns). However, additional analyses still indicated both camera trapping methods produced relatively high overlap and correlation to radiotags. Regardless of species or camera trapping method, mean overlap increased and overlap error decreased rapidly as sample sizes increased until an asymptote near 100 detections which we therefore recommend as a minimum sample size. Researchers should acknowledge that camera traps and radiotags may estimate the same mode of activity but differ in their estimation of magnitude in activity peaks. Nature Publishing Group UK 2018-03-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5843653/ /pubmed/29520029 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22638-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Lashley, Marcus A.
Cove, Michael V.
Chitwood, M. Colter
Penido, Gabriel
Gardner, Beth
DePerno, Chris S.
Moorman, Chris E.
Estimating wildlife activity curves: comparison of methods and sample size
title Estimating wildlife activity curves: comparison of methods and sample size
title_full Estimating wildlife activity curves: comparison of methods and sample size
title_fullStr Estimating wildlife activity curves: comparison of methods and sample size
title_full_unstemmed Estimating wildlife activity curves: comparison of methods and sample size
title_short Estimating wildlife activity curves: comparison of methods and sample size
title_sort estimating wildlife activity curves: comparison of methods and sample size
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5843653/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29520029
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22638-6
work_keys_str_mv AT lashleymarcusa estimatingwildlifeactivitycurvescomparisonofmethodsandsamplesize
AT covemichaelv estimatingwildlifeactivitycurvescomparisonofmethodsandsamplesize
AT chitwoodmcolter estimatingwildlifeactivitycurvescomparisonofmethodsandsamplesize
AT penidogabriel estimatingwildlifeactivitycurvescomparisonofmethodsandsamplesize
AT gardnerbeth estimatingwildlifeactivitycurvescomparisonofmethodsandsamplesize
AT depernochriss estimatingwildlifeactivitycurvescomparisonofmethodsandsamplesize
AT moormanchrise estimatingwildlifeactivitycurvescomparisonofmethodsandsamplesize