Cargando…
A comparison of cost and quality of three methods for estimating density for wild pig (Sus scrofa)
A critical element in effective wildlife management is monitoring the status of wildlife populations; however, resources to monitor wildlife populations are typically limited. We compared cost effectiveness of three common population estimation methods (i.e. non-invasive DNA sampling, camera samplin...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7004977/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32029837 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58937-0 |
_version_ | 1783494832560275456 |
---|---|
author | Davis, Amy J. Keiter, David A. Kierepka, Elizabeth M. Slootmaker, Chris Piaggio, Antoinette J. Beasley, James C. Pepin, Kim M. |
author_facet | Davis, Amy J. Keiter, David A. Kierepka, Elizabeth M. Slootmaker, Chris Piaggio, Antoinette J. Beasley, James C. Pepin, Kim M. |
author_sort | Davis, Amy J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | A critical element in effective wildlife management is monitoring the status of wildlife populations; however, resources to monitor wildlife populations are typically limited. We compared cost effectiveness of three common population estimation methods (i.e. non-invasive DNA sampling, camera sampling, and sampling from trapping) by applying them to wild pigs (Sus scrofa) across three habitats in South Carolina, U.S.A where they are invasive. We used mark-recapture analyses for fecal DNA sampling data, spatially-explicit capture-recapture analyses for camera sampling data, and a removal analysis for removal sampling from trap data. Density estimates were similar across methods. Camera sampling was the least expensive, but had large variances. Fecal DNA sampling was the most expensive, although this technique generally performed well. We examined how reductions in effort by method related to increases in relative bias or imprecision. For removal sampling, the largest cost savings while maintaining unbiased density estimates was from reducing the number of traps. For fecal DNA sampling, a reduction in effort only minimally reduced costs due to the need for increased lab replicates while maintaining high quality estimates. For camera sampling, effort could only be marginally reduced before inducing bias. We provide a decision tree for researchers to help make monitoring decisions. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7004977 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70049772020-02-14 A comparison of cost and quality of three methods for estimating density for wild pig (Sus scrofa) Davis, Amy J. Keiter, David A. Kierepka, Elizabeth M. Slootmaker, Chris Piaggio, Antoinette J. Beasley, James C. Pepin, Kim M. Sci Rep Article A critical element in effective wildlife management is monitoring the status of wildlife populations; however, resources to monitor wildlife populations are typically limited. We compared cost effectiveness of three common population estimation methods (i.e. non-invasive DNA sampling, camera sampling, and sampling from trapping) by applying them to wild pigs (Sus scrofa) across three habitats in South Carolina, U.S.A where they are invasive. We used mark-recapture analyses for fecal DNA sampling data, spatially-explicit capture-recapture analyses for camera sampling data, and a removal analysis for removal sampling from trap data. Density estimates were similar across methods. Camera sampling was the least expensive, but had large variances. Fecal DNA sampling was the most expensive, although this technique generally performed well. We examined how reductions in effort by method related to increases in relative bias or imprecision. For removal sampling, the largest cost savings while maintaining unbiased density estimates was from reducing the number of traps. For fecal DNA sampling, a reduction in effort only minimally reduced costs due to the need for increased lab replicates while maintaining high quality estimates. For camera sampling, effort could only be marginally reduced before inducing bias. We provide a decision tree for researchers to help make monitoring decisions. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-02-06 /pmc/articles/PMC7004977/ /pubmed/32029837 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58937-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 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 Davis, Amy J. Keiter, David A. Kierepka, Elizabeth M. Slootmaker, Chris Piaggio, Antoinette J. Beasley, James C. Pepin, Kim M. A comparison of cost and quality of three methods for estimating density for wild pig (Sus scrofa) |
title | A comparison of cost and quality of three methods for estimating density for wild pig (Sus scrofa) |
title_full | A comparison of cost and quality of three methods for estimating density for wild pig (Sus scrofa) |
title_fullStr | A comparison of cost and quality of three methods for estimating density for wild pig (Sus scrofa) |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of cost and quality of three methods for estimating density for wild pig (Sus scrofa) |
title_short | A comparison of cost and quality of three methods for estimating density for wild pig (Sus scrofa) |
title_sort | comparison of cost and quality of three methods for estimating density for wild pig (sus scrofa) |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7004977/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32029837 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58937-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT davisamyj acomparisonofcostandqualityofthreemethodsforestimatingdensityforwildpigsusscrofa AT keiterdavida acomparisonofcostandqualityofthreemethodsforestimatingdensityforwildpigsusscrofa AT kierepkaelizabethm acomparisonofcostandqualityofthreemethodsforestimatingdensityforwildpigsusscrofa AT slootmakerchris acomparisonofcostandqualityofthreemethodsforestimatingdensityforwildpigsusscrofa AT piaggioantoinettej acomparisonofcostandqualityofthreemethodsforestimatingdensityforwildpigsusscrofa AT beasleyjamesc acomparisonofcostandqualityofthreemethodsforestimatingdensityforwildpigsusscrofa AT pepinkimm acomparisonofcostandqualityofthreemethodsforestimatingdensityforwildpigsusscrofa AT davisamyj comparisonofcostandqualityofthreemethodsforestimatingdensityforwildpigsusscrofa AT keiterdavida comparisonofcostandqualityofthreemethodsforestimatingdensityforwildpigsusscrofa AT kierepkaelizabethm comparisonofcostandqualityofthreemethodsforestimatingdensityforwildpigsusscrofa AT slootmakerchris comparisonofcostandqualityofthreemethodsforestimatingdensityforwildpigsusscrofa AT piaggioantoinettej comparisonofcostandqualityofthreemethodsforestimatingdensityforwildpigsusscrofa AT beasleyjamesc comparisonofcostandqualityofthreemethodsforestimatingdensityforwildpigsusscrofa AT pepinkimm comparisonofcostandqualityofthreemethodsforestimatingdensityforwildpigsusscrofa |