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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Marcon, Andrea, Battocchio, Daniele, Apollonio, Marco, Grignolio, Stefano
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