Performance of hunting statistics as spatiotemporal density indices of moose (<i>Alces alces</i>) in Norway

Ueno, Mayumi; Solberg, Erling Johan; Iijima, Hayato; Rolandsen, Christer Moe; Gangsei, Lars Erik

doi:10.1890/es13-00083.1

Cited by 55 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hunters in such tightly limited entry scenarios may be less likely to harvest an animal at the first opportunity, driving effort estimates upward. This highly limited‐entry scenario may explain the questionable performance of CPUE as a population monitoring tool in our system relative to other systems with much larger quantities of permissible harvest (Ueno et al ). Lastly, although the majority of licenses are for antlered moose, there are a subset of licenses issued for antlerless or either‐sex harvest; an average of 29% of the animals harvested within these data were antlerless (adult females and calves).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Differences in hunter behavior when hunting males versus females may also affect CPUE data, with potential to bias trends if the proportion of antlered versus antlerless harvest changes over time (Bhandari et al , Holsman and Petchenik ). Biologists monitoring populations with CPUE data may wish to restrict uses of this metric to within‐sex comparisons, or consider working with other metrics such as animal sightings per unit effort (Ueno et al ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Calibrating minimum counts and catch‐per‐unit‐effort as indices of moose population trend

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monitoring wildlife population trends often involves indices assumed to correlate in proportion to abundance. We used aerial count data and harvest statistics for moose (Alces alces) populations in 16 hunting districts of Montana, USA, spanning 32 years (1983–2014) to assess population trends, drivers of uncertainty about those trends, and the relationship between aerial counts and hunter catch‐per‐unit‐effort (CPUE). We found a great deal of statistical uncertainty surrounding population trends of moose measured with aerial minimum‐count data, despite time series averaging >15 annual counts/district. State‐space models of count‐based trends suggested declining populations in 11 of 16 districts, yet 95% credible intervals overlapped 0 in all cases. The precision of count‐based trends improved with increases in the number of years spanned by the time series (β = −0.003, P < 0.001) and average number of moose counted per survey (β = −0.0006, P = 0.002). Calibration of CPUE with count data showed positive correlations in only 5 of 16 (31%) districts and a catchability exponent (β) significantly <1. This indicated a generally poor level of agreement between these 2 indices, and evidence of “hyperstability,” wherein declines measured by aerial counts were not reflected by proportionate declines in CPUE. Additionally, long‐term trends measured with CPUE were not correlated to those in aerial counts (P = 0.61). We encourage explicit attention to the precision of trend estimates and local calibration of population indices to ensure both positive and proportionate relationships to underlying patterns of abundance. © 2016 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Calibrating minimum counts and catch‐per‐unit‐effort as indices of moose population trend

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to the explanatory variables earlier included in the stand scale analysis, we also included harvest data. Harvest data can be used as indices of relative deer abundance at a landscape scale (Ueno et al 2014). The pellet group count can be used as an overall proxy of relative deer abundance within the forest stands within the landscape (Mayle et al 1999).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing landscapes for multiple objectives: alternative forage can reduce the conflict between deer and forestry

Jarnemo¹,

Minderman²,

Zidar³

et al. 2014

Ecosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Deer (Cervidae) cause considerable damage to forest plantations, crops, and protected habitats.The most common response to this damage is to implement strategies to lower population densities. However, lowering deer density may not always be desirable from hunting, recreational, or conservation perspectives. Therefore, knowledge is needed about additional factors beyond deer density that affect damage levels, and management actions that consider competing management goals. We studied the relationships between levels of bark-stripping by red deer (Cervus elaphus) on Norway spruce (Picea abies) and (1) relative deer density indices (pellet group count and deer harvest data), (2) availability of alternative natural forage (cover of forage species) and (3) proportion forest in the landscape, both at a forest stand scale and at a landscape scale. Extensive variation in damage level was evident between the six study areas. On a stand scale, the proportion of spruce damaged was positively related to pellet group density, indicating the importance of local deer usage of stands. In addition, available alternative forage in the field layer within spruce stands and proportion forest surrounding stands was negatively related to damage level. On the landscape scale, damage level was negatively related to availability of forage in the field and shrub layers and proportion forest, but was not related to any of the relative deer density indices. Increasing alternative forage may thus decrease damage and thereby reduce conflicts. Additionally, the proportion of forest in the landscape affects damage levels and should thus be considered in landscape planning and when forecasting damage risk. The relationship between local deer usage of stands and damage level suggests that future studies should try to separate the effects of local deer usage and deer density.

show abstract

“…Harvest density is a robust, but slightly v www.esajournals.org delayed estimate of local variation in moose density. The temporal variation in harvest density was better explained by moose density in year t À 1 than in year t or year t À 2 (Ueno et al 2014), so we used harvest density with a one-year time lag (C. Milleret, unpublished manuscript). Moose harvest data was unavailable locally in some years before 1998.…”

Section: Study Period and Wolf-related Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wolves, people, and brown bears influence the expansion of the recolonizing wolf population in Scandinavia

Ordiz

Milleret²,

Kindberg

et al. 2015

Ecosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Interspecific competition can influence the distribution and abundance of species and the structure of ecological communities and entire ecosystems. Interactions between apex predators can have cascading effects through the entire natural community, which supports broadening the scope of conservation from single species to a much wider ecosystem perspective. However, competition between wild large carnivores can hardly be measured experimentally. In this study, we analyzed the expansion of the Scandinavian wolf (Canis lupus) population during its recovery from the early 1990s. We took into account wolf-, habitat-, human-and brown bear (Ursus arctos)-related factors, because wolf expansion occurred within an area partially sympatric with bears. Wolf pair establishment was positively related to previous wolf presence and was negatively related to road density, distance to other wolf territories, and bear density. These findings suggest that both human-related habitat modification and interspecific competition have been influential factors modulating the expansion of the wolf population. Interactions between large carnivores have the potential to affect overall biodiversity. Therefore, conservation-oriented management of such species should consider interspecific interactions, rather than focusing only on target populations of single species. Long-term monitoring data across large areas should also help quantify and predict the influence of biotic interactions on species assemblages and distributions elsewhere. This is important because interactive processes can be essential in the regulation, stability, and resilience of ecological communities.

show abstract

Performance of hunting statistics as spatiotemporal density indices of moose (Alces alces) in Norway

Cited by 55 publications

References 39 publications

Calibrating minimum counts and catch‐per‐unit‐effort as indices of moose population trend

Calibrating minimum counts and catch‐per‐unit‐effort as indices of moose population trend

Managing landscapes for multiple objectives: alternative forage can reduce the conflict between deer and forestry

Wolves, people, and brown bears influence the expansion of the recolonizing wolf population in Scandinavia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About