Cargando…
Assessing precision and requirements of three methods to estimate roe deer density
Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) is the most abundant cervid in Europe and, as such, has a considerable impact over several human activities. Accurate roe deer population size estimates are useful to ensure their proper management. We tested 3 methods for estimating roe deer abundance (drive counts, p...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6786588/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31600228 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222349 |
_version_ | 1783458093386956800 |
---|---|
author | Marcon, Andrea Battocchio, Daniele Apollonio, Marco Grignolio, Stefano |
author_facet | Marcon, Andrea Battocchio, Daniele Apollonio, Marco Grignolio, Stefano |
author_sort | Marcon, Andrea |
collection | PubMed |
description | Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) is the most abundant cervid in Europe and, as such, has a considerable impact over several human activities. Accurate roe deer population size estimates are useful to ensure their proper management. We tested 3 methods for estimating roe deer abundance (drive counts, pellet-group counts, and camera trapping) during two consecutive years (2012 and 2013) in the Apennines (Italy) in order to assess their precision and applicability. During the study period, population density estimates were: drive counts 21.89±12.74 roe deer/km(2) and pellet-group counts 18.74±2.31 roe deer/km(2) in 2012; drive counts 19.32±11.12 roe deer/km(2) and camera trapping 29.05±7.48 roe deer/km(2) in 2013. Precision of the density estimates differed widely among the 3 methods, with coefficients of variation ranging from 12% (pellet-group counts) to 58% (drive counts). Drive counts represented the most demanding method on account of the higher number of operators involved. Pellet-group counts yielded the most precise results and required a smaller number of operators, though the sampling effort was considerable. When compared to the other two methods, camera trapping resulted in an intermediate level of precision and required the lowest sampling effort. We also discussed field protocols of each method, considering that volunteers, rather than technicians, will more likely be appointed for these tasks in the near future. For this reason, we strongly suggest that for each method managers of population density monitoring projects take into account ease of use as well as the quality of the results obtained and the resources required. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6786588 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67865882019-10-19 Assessing precision and requirements of three methods to estimate roe deer density Marcon, Andrea Battocchio, Daniele Apollonio, Marco Grignolio, Stefano PLoS One Research Article Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) is the most abundant cervid in Europe and, as such, has a considerable impact over several human activities. Accurate roe deer population size estimates are useful to ensure their proper management. We tested 3 methods for estimating roe deer abundance (drive counts, pellet-group counts, and camera trapping) during two consecutive years (2012 and 2013) in the Apennines (Italy) in order to assess their precision and applicability. During the study period, population density estimates were: drive counts 21.89±12.74 roe deer/km(2) and pellet-group counts 18.74±2.31 roe deer/km(2) in 2012; drive counts 19.32±11.12 roe deer/km(2) and camera trapping 29.05±7.48 roe deer/km(2) in 2013. Precision of the density estimates differed widely among the 3 methods, with coefficients of variation ranging from 12% (pellet-group counts) to 58% (drive counts). Drive counts represented the most demanding method on account of the higher number of operators involved. Pellet-group counts yielded the most precise results and required a smaller number of operators, though the sampling effort was considerable. When compared to the other two methods, camera trapping resulted in an intermediate level of precision and required the lowest sampling effort. We also discussed field protocols of each method, considering that volunteers, rather than technicians, will more likely be appointed for these tasks in the near future. For this reason, we strongly suggest that for each method managers of population density monitoring projects take into account ease of use as well as the quality of the results obtained and the resources required. Public Library of Science 2019-10-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6786588/ /pubmed/31600228 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222349 Text en © 2019 Marcon et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Marcon, Andrea Battocchio, Daniele Apollonio, Marco Grignolio, Stefano Assessing precision and requirements of three methods to estimate roe deer density |
title | Assessing precision and requirements of three methods to estimate roe deer density |
title_full | Assessing precision and requirements of three methods to estimate roe deer density |
title_fullStr | Assessing precision and requirements of three methods to estimate roe deer density |
title_full_unstemmed | Assessing precision and requirements of three methods to estimate roe deer density |
title_short | Assessing precision and requirements of three methods to estimate roe deer density |
title_sort | assessing precision and requirements of three methods to estimate roe deer density |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6786588/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31600228 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222349 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT marconandrea assessingprecisionandrequirementsofthreemethodstoestimateroedeerdensity AT battocchiodaniele assessingprecisionandrequirementsofthreemethodstoestimateroedeerdensity AT apolloniomarco assessingprecisionandrequirementsofthreemethodstoestimateroedeerdensity AT grignoliostefano assessingprecisionandrequirementsofthreemethodstoestimateroedeerdensity |