Estimating wildlife activity curves: comparison of methods and sample size
被引:126
|
作者:
Lashley, Marcus A.
论文数: 0引用数: 0
h-index: 0
机构:
Mississippi State Univ, Wildlife Fisheries & Aquaculture, Box 9690, Mississippi State, MS 39762 USAMississippi State Univ, Wildlife Fisheries & Aquaculture, Box 9690, Mississippi State, MS 39762 USA
Lashley, Marcus A.
[1
]
Cove, Michael V.
论文数: 0引用数: 0
h-index: 0
机构:
North Carolina State Univ, Dept Appl Ecol, Raleigh, NC 27695 USAMississippi State Univ, Wildlife Fisheries & Aquaculture, Box 9690, Mississippi State, MS 39762 USA
Cove, Michael V.
[2
]
论文数: 引用数:
h-index:
机构:
Chitwood, M. Colter
[3
]
Penido, Gabriel
论文数: 0引用数: 0
h-index: 0
机构:
Univ Brasilia, Dept Zool, Programa Posgrad Ecol, BR-70910900 Brasilia, DF, BrazilMississippi State Univ, Wildlife Fisheries & Aquaculture, Box 9690, Mississippi State, MS 39762 USA
Penido, Gabriel
[4
]
论文数: 引用数:
h-index:
机构:
Gardner, Beth
[5
]
DePerno, Chris S.
论文数: 0引用数: 0
h-index: 0
机构:
North Carolina State Univ, Fisheries Wildlife & Conservat Biol Program, Raleigh, NC 27606 USAMississippi State Univ, Wildlife Fisheries & Aquaculture, Box 9690, Mississippi State, MS 39762 USA
DePerno, Chris S.
[6
]
Moorman, Chris E.
论文数: 0引用数: 0
h-index: 0
机构:
North Carolina State Univ, Fisheries Wildlife & Conservat Biol Program, Raleigh, NC 27606 USAMississippi State Univ, Wildlife Fisheries & Aquaculture, Box 9690, Mississippi State, MS 39762 USA
Moorman, Chris E.
[6
]
机构:
[1] Mississippi State Univ, Wildlife Fisheries & Aquaculture, Box 9690, Mississippi State, MS 39762 USA
[2] North Carolina State Univ, Dept Appl Ecol, Raleigh, NC 27695 USA
[3] Univ Montana, Wildlife Biol Program, Missoula, MT 59812 USA
[4] Univ Brasilia, Dept Zool, Programa Posgrad Ecol, BR-70910900 Brasilia, DF, Brazil
[5] Univ Washington, Environm & Forest Sci, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[6] North Carolina State Univ, Fisheries Wildlife & Conservat Biol Program, Raleigh, NC 27606 USA
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 (similar to 1 kg-similar to 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.