Implications of the scale of detection for inferring co‐occurrence patterns from paired camera traps and acoustic recorders

Abstract

AbstractMultifunctional landscapes that support economic activities and conservation of biological diversity (e.g., cattle ranches with native forest) are becoming increasingly important, as small remnants of native forest may comprise the only habitat left for some wildlife species. Understanding the co‐occurrence between wildlife and disturbance factors, such as poaching activity and domestic ungulates, is key to successful management of multifunctional landscapes. Tools to measure co‐occurrence between wildlife and disturbance factors include camera traps and autonomous acoustic recording units. We paired 52 camera trap stations with acoustic recorders to investigate the association between two measures of disturbance (poaching and cattle) and wild ungulates present in multifunctional landscapes of the Colombian Orinoquía. We used joint species distribution models to investigate species‐habitat associations and species‐disturbance correlations. One model was fitted using camera trap data to detect wild ungulates and disturbance factors, and a second model was fitted after replacing camera‐trap detections of disturbance factors with their corresponding acoustic detections. The direction, significance, and precision of the effect of covariates depended on the sampling method used for disturbance factors. Acoustic monitoring typically resulted in more precise estimates of the effects of covariates and of species‐disturbance correlations. Association patterns between wildlife and disturbance factors were only found when disturbance was detected by acoustic recorders. Camera traps allowed us to detect non‐vocalizing species whereas audio recording devices increased detection of disturbance factors leading to more precise estimates of co‐occurrence patterns. The collared peccary, lowland tapir and white‐tailed deer co‐occurred with disturbance factors and are conservation priorities due to greater risk of poaching or disease transmission from cattle.Article impact statement: Co‐occurrence of disturbance and wildlife depends on method of detection (camera traps or acoustic recorders).This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved