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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |