Author:
Martin-Garcia Sara,Cortazar-Chinarro Maria,Rodríguez-Recio Mariano,Jiménez José,Höglund Jacob,Virgós Emilio
Abstract
AbstractApplying the most appropriate sampling method is essential for estimating population size. Sampling methods and techniques to estimate abundance may be limited by environmental characteristics, species traits, specific requirements of the techniques, or the economic resources to carry out the sampling. Thus, evaluating multiple sampling methods in monitoring populations is essential for establishing effective conservation strategies. In this study, we compare two of the most commonly used sampling methods with the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) as the type species. On the one hand, we compared the minimum number of individuals (NI) detected by camera trapping, identifying individuals by morphological characteristics with the minimum number of individuals detected by DNA faeces and a set of 16 microsatellites. On the other hand, we estimated abundance by performing an N-mixture model using information from camera-traps to study the relationship between abundance and the minimum number of individuals detected. Results showed that the minimum NI provided by camera trapping was slightly higher than that of DNA faecal genotyping, with 23.66 and 19 individuals, respectively. In addition, abundance and NI detected by camera trapping showed a positive relationship. In contrast, there was a non-significant negative relationship between NI detected by faecal DNA and abundance estimates. Our results suggest using the minimum number of photo-identified individuals as a reliable index to study variation in red fox abundance when other advanced methods cannot be implemented in the study of population size. However, it is necessary to improve the methods of faecal sampling to study the relationship with camera-trap data.
Funder
Universidad Rey Juan Carlos
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Nature and Landscape Conservation,Ecology,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Reference116 articles.
1. Andelt WF, Andelt SH (1984) Diet bias in scat deposition-rate surveys of coyote density. Wildl Soc Bull (1973–2006) 12(1):74–77
2. Anderson DR (2003) Response to Engeman: index values rarely constitute reliable information. Wildl Soc Bull 31(1):288–291
3. Andrews KR, Good JM, Miller MR, Luikart G, Hohenlohe PA (2016) Harnessing the power of RADseq for ecological and evolutionary genomics. Nat Rev Genet 17:81–92. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2015.28
4. Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control 19(6):716–723. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705
5. Arandjelovic M, Guschanski K, Schubert G, Harris TR, Thalmann O, Siedel H, Vigilant L (2009) Two-step multiplex polymerase chain reaction improves the speed and accuracy of genotyping using DNA from noninvasive and museum samples. Mol Ecol Resour 9(1):28–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2008.02387.x