Patterns of habitat use by three threatened mammals 10 years after reintroduction into a fenced reserve free of introduced predators

Berry, Laurence E.; Hotellier, F. A. L’; Carter, Andrew; Kemp, Leah; Kavanagh, Rodney P.; Roshier, David A.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2018.11.023

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our predictions for future habitat suitability indicate both potential winners and losers among ecologically rare species. For instance, Myrmecobius fasciatus (a marsupial whose diet consists almost exclusively of termites 68 ) could lose 65% of its current range while Sylvisorex konganensis, a small shrew, could double its range. Yet, our scenarios are based on climate change only.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global distribution and conservation status of ecologically rare mammal and bird species

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Identifying species that are both geographically restricted and functionally distinct, i.e. supporting rare traits and functions, is of prime importance given their risk of extinction and their potential contribution to ecosystem functioning. We use global species distributions and functional traits for birds and mammals to identify the ecologically rare species, understand their characteristics, and identify hotspots. We find that ecologically rare species are disproportionately represented in IUCN threatened categories, insufficiently covered by protected areas, and for some of them sensitive to current and future threats. While they are more abundant overall in countries with a low human development index, some countries with high human development index are also hotspots of ecological rarity, suggesting transboundary responsibility for their conservation. Altogether, these results state that more conservation emphasis should be given to ecological rarity given future environmental conditions and the need to sustain multiple ecosystem processes in the long-term.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global distribution and conservation status of ecologically rare mammal and bird species

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Animal detectability can be affected by factors such as weather, time of day, vegetation density and observer ability (Gese 2001). More robust numbat population estimates from driven transects were achieved by Berry et al (2019) within the fenced Scotia Sanctuary by applying distance sampling methods accounting for detection probabilities. Because distance sampling techniques require relatively high animal sighting rates (60-80 animals) (Buckland et al 2001), they are impractical for monitoring numbats in the UWR where sighting rates from driven transects were very low, with 0.3 and 1.45 sightings per 100 km in 1995 and 1996 respectively (Friend and Page 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sign surveys can be more efficient and cost effective than driven transects and camera trapping: a comparison of detection methods for a small elusive mammal, the numbat (

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context. Determining the most efficient detection method for a target species is key for successful wildlife monitoring and management. Driven transects and sign surveys are commonly used to monitor populations of the endangered numbat (Myrmecobius fasciatus). Camera trapping is being explored as a new method. These methods were unevaluated for efficacy and cost for numbat detection.Aims. To compare efficacy and costing of driven transects, sign surveys and camera trapping for detecting numbats in the Upper Warren region, Western Australia.Methods. Seven repeat sign surveys and driven transects, as well as 4 months of camera trapping, were conducted concurrently at 50 sites along three transects. Numbat detection rates and costing of the three techniques were compared, and detection probabilities were compared between sign surveys and camera trapping.Key results. Numbat signs were detected during 88 surveys at 39 sites, exceeding camera trapping (26 detections at 13 sites) and driven transects (seven detections near five sites). The estimated probability for detecting a numbat or a sign thereof (at a site where numbats were present) ranged from 0.21 to 0.35 for a sign survey, and 0.02 to 0.06 for 7 days of camera trapping. Total survey costs were lowest for driven transects, followed by camera trapping and sign surveys. When expressed as cost per numbat detection, sign surveys were cheapest.Conclusions. Comparative studies of survey methods are essential for optimal, cost-effective wildlife monitoring. Sign surveys were more successful and cost effective than camera trapping or driven transects for detecting numbats in the Upper Warren region. Together with occupancy modelling, sign surveys are appropriate to investigate changes in occupancy rates over time, which could serve as a metric for long-term numbat monitoring.Implications. There is no 'best' method for wildlife surveys. Case-specific comparison of animal detection methods is recommended to ensure optimal methods. For the numbat population in the Upper Warren region, further studies are needed to improve numbat detection rates from camera trapping, and to test sign surveys in autumn (March to May), when surviving juvenile numbats have established their own territory and assumptions regarding population closure are less likely to be violated.

show abstract

“…In contrast, occurrence distributions are appropriate for quantifying resource use in resource utilization functions, because they characterize an animal’s likely presence on the landscape during a study period. In practice, ecologists typically (and correctly) use range estimators to sample availability in resource selection functions, but often use range estimators rather than occurrence estimators to quantify habitat use in resource utilization functions (e.g., Berry et al ., 2019, Johnston et al ., 2020, Koizumi & Derocher, 2019, Prince et al ., 2016, Winder et al ., 2017). This may be because the initial papers on resource utilization functions (Marzluff et al ., 2004, Millspaugh et al ., 2006) used range estimators to generate utilization distributions (understandable because range estimators were the only tools available at the time—occurrence estimators had not been popularized yet).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clarifying space use concepts in ecology: range vs. occurrence distributions

Alston

Fleming

Noonan

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantifying animal movements is necessary for answering a wide array of research questions in ecology and conservation biology. Consequently, ecologists have made considerable efforts to identify the best way to estimate an animal's home range, and many methods of estimating home ranges have arisen over the past half century. Most of these methods fall into two distinct categories of estimators that have only recently been described in statistical detail: those that measure range distributions (methods such as Kernel Density Estimation that quantify the long-run behavior of a movement process that features restricted space use) and those that measure occurrence distributions (methods such as Brownian Bridge Movement Models and the Correlated Random Walk Library that quantify uncertainty in an animal movement path during a specific period of observation). In this paper, we use theory, simulations, and empirical analysis to demonstrate the importance of applying these two classes of space use estimators appropriately and distinctly. Conflating range and occurrence distributions can have serious consequences for ecological inference and conservation practice. For example, in most situations, home-range estimates quantified using occurrence estimators are too small, and this problem is exacerbated by ongoing improvements in tracking technology that enable more frequent and more accurate data on animal movements. We encourage researchers to use range estimators to estimate the area of home ranges and occurrence estimators to answer other questions in movement ecology, such as when and where an animal crosses a linear feature, visits a location of interest, or interacts with other animals.

show abstract

Patterns of habitat use by three threatened mammals 10 years after reintroduction into a fenced reserve free of introduced predators

Cited by 13 publications

References 31 publications

Global distribution and conservation status of ecologically rare mammal and bird species

Global distribution and conservation status of ecologically rare mammal and bird species

Sign surveys can be more efficient and cost effective than driven transects and camera trapping: a comparison of detection methods for a small elusive mammal, the numbat (

Clarifying space use concepts in ecology: range vs. occurrence distributions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Patterns of habitat use by three threatened mammals 10 years after reintroduction into a fenced reserve free of introduced predators

Cited by 13 publications

References 31 publications

Global distribution and conservation status of ecologically rare mammal and bird species

Global distribution and conservation status of ecologically rare mammal and bird species

Sign surveys can be more efficient and cost effective than driven transects and camera trapping: a comparison of detection methods for a small elusive mammal, the numbat (

Clarifying space use concepts in ecology: range vs. occurrence distributions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Patterns of habitat use by three threatened mammals 10 years after reintroduction into a fenced reserve free of introduced predators