Chapter 4:Ecological methods

Flowerdew, J. R.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2907.1976.tb00208.x

Cited by 59 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 230 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The time factor, or any climatic factor that may affect the catchability of an individual, may amplify in a positive or negative effect the heterogeneity of individuals. In fact, it may increase the probability of capture of a 'trap-happy' individual or decrease the probability of capture of 'trap-shy' individual (Flowerdew 1976).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying whether different demographic models produce incongruent results on population dynamics of two long-term studied rodent species

Amori¹,

Silvestro²,

Ciucci³

et al. 2017

European Journal of Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are many reasons behind monitoring the surveys of wild populations (e.g., Caughley 1977), and there is a wide range of methods that allows the implementation of these monitoring surveys (Krebs 1989). The sampling design is important in order to reduce the variation and potential biases among observations or among categories of treatment (Garton et al. 2005). The choice of a specific sampling method depends on the objectives of the study and/or on the assumptions made, the sampled population and other extrinsic factors, such as climate, logistics, equipment, time available and the desired size of the sample (Garton et al. 2005). Lebreton et al. (1992) recommended a four-step procedure in order to select the best model for a given type of demographic dataset: (1) start from a global demographic model compatible with the biology of the studied species and with the design of the study, and assess its fit; (2) select a more parsimonious model using Akaike's Information Criterion to limit the number of formal tests; (3) test for the most important biological questions by comparing this model with neighbouring ones using likelihood ratio tests; and (4) obtain maximum likelihood estimates of model parameters with estimates of precision. The purpose is to get the best estimate with the least confidence interval and at the lowest cost (Krebs 1989). With the above-mentioned criteria in mind, a suite of field studies has been published on the demography of animals during the last few decades (e.g., Hoyle et al. 2001).As concerning the monitoring of wild rodent populations, the most readily used field methodology has been the Capture -Marking -Recapture (CMR; see Flowerdew 1976). This methodology has also been repeatedly used in recent years (e.g., Lambin et al. 2006;Amori et al. 2015). Based on the CMR data, and using appropriate demographic models, it is possible to evaluate distinct remarkable components such as survival, density, recruitment, dispersal, population size, and even movements of individuals that occur in the population (Pollock et al. 1990).Quantifying whether different demographic models produce incongruent results on population dynamics of two long-term studied rodent species EJE 2017EJE , 3(1): 18-26, doi: 10.1515EJE /eje-2017 Giovanni 1. Population density (ind/ha) of long-term (>15 years) series of CMR populations, using distinct demographic models designed for both open and closed populations, were analysed for two sympatric species of rodents (Myodes glareolus and Apodemus flavicollis) from a mountain area in central Italy, in order to test the relative performance of various employed demographic models. In particular, the hypothesis that enumeration models systematically underestimate the population size of a given population was tested.2. Overall, we compared the performance of 7 distinct demographic models, including both closed and open models, for each study species. Although the two species revealed remarkable intrinsic differences in demography traits (for instance, a lower propensity f...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying whether different demographic models produce incongruent results on population dynamics of two long-term studied rodent species

Amori¹,

Silvestro²,

Ciucci³

et al. 2017

European Journal of Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The arrangement of traps in either a grid or line affects what can be done with the data collected; with a line recommended for inventory or survey (Read 1988;Jones et al 1996), detecting movement between habitats, or in linear habitats (Gurnell and Flowerdew 1982), whilst a grid is recommended for estimation of abundance, densities or movements (Stickel 1948;Smith et al 1975;Flowerdew 1976) because the area sampled is more readily estimated. Other aspects of the trapping program that must be considered are: trap spacing (Tew et al 1994), number of traps, duration of trapping, local placement (e.g., Stewart 1979;Norton 1987), and whether to re-use traps that have caught animals without washing them.…”

Section: Since Its Design In Victoria In 1965 (By Kevinmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1989;Laurance 1992;Fox 1995), and wooden nest boxes for arboreal species such as the feathertail glider Acrobates pygmaeus (Ward 2000) and yellowfooted antechinus or mardo Antechinus flavipes leucogaster (Wardell-Johnson 1986). Most small terrestrial mammals in south-eastern Australia, however, are readily captured in Elliott traps set on the ground, and many scansorial species in Elliott traps mounted on tree brackets (e.g., Laurance 1992).The arrangement of traps in either a grid or line affects what can be done with the data collected; with a line recommended for inventory or survey (Read 1988;Jones et al 1996), detecting movement between habitats, or in linear habitats (Gurnell and Flowerdew 1982), whilst a grid is recommended for estimation of abundance, densities or movements (Stickel 1948;Smith et al 1975;Flowerdew 1976) because the area sampled is more readily estimated. Other aspects of the trapping program that must be considered are: trap spacing (Tew et al 1994), number of traps, duration of trapping, local placement (e.g., Stewart 1979; Norton 1987), and whether to re-use traps that have caught animals without washing them.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of Elliott trapping methods for small mammals in Australia.

Tasker¹,

Dickman²

2001

Aust. Mammalogy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tasker EM and Dickman CR, 2002. A review of Elliott trapping methods for small mammals in Australia. Australian Mammalogy 23: 77-87.Much of the knowledge of small mammal ecology in Australia has come from Elliott trapping, however the results of these studies are influenced by the way in which trapping is carried out. We review some of the major factors affecting the results of Elliott trapping: trap spacing, local placement, presence of odours on the trap (from conspecifics, similar species, predators, and humans), and duration of trapping. Most factors clearly influence trapping results and should be routinely considered, and preferably controlled, in future studies which use Elliott traps.Key words: Elliott trap, trapping, small mammals, odours, trap response, trap configuration. Research, University of S ydney NSW 2006, Australia. Email: etasker@bio.usyd.edu.au; cdickman@bio.usyd.edu.au. Manuscript received 3 August 2001; accepted 10 November 2001. E.M. Tasker and C.R. Dickman, School of Biological Sciences and Institute of Wildlife SINCE its design in Victoria in 1965 (by KevinElliott, a mechanical engineer and amateur naturalist), the Elliott trap has become the most commonly used tool for trapping small mammals in temperate Australian environments, and the basis for many ecological studies. Trapping with 'Elliotts' is generally regarded as standard, and no single publication clearly sets out an optimal way of setting traps, or the biases of different modifications.One obvious but important feature of the Elliott trap is that it can only capture an animal if the animal itself decides to go in the trap. Thus, it becomes particularly important in Elliott trapping to examine the factors that influence the likelihood of an animal entering a trap, and to maximize the chances of it doing so.In general, various things affect the success of any mammal trapping program, with weather, season, elevation, and habitat type being obvious examples of environmental influences (see review in Smith et al. 1975). In addition, trapping results are influenced by the methods used, for example, choice of trap and bait (Sealander and James 1958;Gurnell 1976;O'Farrell et al. 1994). Traps that can be more effective than Elliott traps for certain small mammals in forested Australian environments include: pitfall traps for the eastern pygmy-possum Cercartetus nanus, white-footed dunnart Sminthopsis leucopus, and common dunnart Sminthopsis murina (Bennett et al. 1989;Laurance 1992;Fox 1995), and wooden nest boxes for arboreal species such as the feathertail glider Acrobates pygmaeus (Ward 2000) and yellowfooted antechinus or mardo Antechinus flavipes leucogaster (Wardell-Johnson 1986). Most small terrestrial mammals in south-eastern Australia, however, are readily captured in Elliott traps set on the ground, and many scansorial species in Elliott traps mounted on tree brackets (e.g., Laurance 1992).The arrangement of traps in either a grid or line affects what can be done with the data collected; with a line recommended for inventor...

show abstract

“…Weight and breeding condition of each rat were also noted. Rats were released at the point of capture after being individually marked by the toe clipping method described by Flowerdew (1976). From observations of mitosis and male meiosis in R. fuscipes with B chromosomes (Thomson et a!, 1984) it is clear that there is little or no non-disjunction in premeiotic mitoses.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%