Small-Mammal Density Estimation: A Field Comparison of Grid-Based vs. Web-Based Density Estimators

Abstract

Statistical models for estimating absolute densities of field populations of animals have been widely used over the last century in both scientific studies and wildlife management programs. To date, two general classes of density estimation models have been developed: models that use data sets from capture–recapture or removal sampling techniques (often derived from trapping grids) from which separate estimates of population size (NÌ‚) and effective sampling area (AÌ‚) are used to calculate density (DÌ‚ = NÌ‚/AÌ‚); and models applicable to sampling regimes using distance‐sampling theory (typically transect lines or trapping webs) to estimate detection functions and densities directly from the distance data. However, few studies have evaluated these respective models for accuracy, precision, and bias on known field populations, and no studies have been conducted that compare the two approaches under controlled field conditions. In this study, we evaluated both classes of density estimators on known densities of enclosed rodent populations. Test data sets (n = 11) were developed using nine rodent species from capture–recapture live‐trapping on both trapping grids and trapping webs in four replicate 4.2‐ha enclosures on the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge in central New Mexico, USA. Additional “saturation” trapping efforts resulted in an enumeration of the rodent populations in each enclosure, allowing the computation of true densities. Density estimates (DÌ‚) were calculated using program CAPTURE for the grid data sets and program DISTANCE for the web data sets, and these results were compared to the known true densities (D) to evaluate each model's relative mean square error, accuracy, precision, and bias. In addition, we evaluated a variety of approaches to each data set's analysis by having a group of independent expert analysts calculate their best density estimates without a priori knowledge of the true densities; this “blind” test allowed us to evaluate the influence of expertise and experience in calculating density estimates in comparison to simply using default values in programs CAPTURE and DISTANCE. While the rodent sample sizes were considerably smaller than the recommended minimum for good model results, we found that several models performed well empirically, including the web‐based uniform and half‐normal models in program DISTANCE, and the grid‐based models Mb and Mbh in program CAPTURE (with AÌ‚ adjusted by species‐specific full mean maximum distance moved (MMDM) values). These models produced accurate DÌ‚ values (with 95% confidence intervals that included the true D values) and exhibited acceptable bias but poor precision. However, in linear regression analyses comparing each model's DÌ‚ values to the true D values over the range of observed test densities, only the web‐based uniform model exhibited a regression slope near 1.0; all other models showed substantial slope deviations, indicating biased estimates at higher or lower density values. In addition, the grid‐based DÌ‚ analyses using full ...

Movimientos de roedores intra- e inter-ambiente y riesgo de exposición al Hantavirus "Andes" en Patagonia norte, Argentina

“…A partir del perímetro externo del área de transición se colocaron seis líneas de cinco trampas cada una (30 trampas en total, separadas por ~10 m), en diferentes direcciones de acuerdo a la topografía del lugar en el ambiente silvestre. Las trampas de cada una de estas líneas fueron dispuestas en el terreno con un diseño en "tela de araña" (Parmenter and MacMahon 1989;Parmenter et al 2003) (Figura 1b).…”

Incorporating ecological drivers and uncertainty into a demographic population viability analysis for the island fox

“…In nearly all cases, model M(h) or M(bh) was used, consistent with the observed behavior of these foxes, which tend to be readily trappable on their territory. Local population estimates were converted to densities using a buffer strip width (Wilson and Anderson 1985) equal to the full mean maximum distance moved (MMDM) based on our observation that results using full MMDM (vs. the conventional 0.5MMDM) more closely approximate fox density estimates derived from telemetry (unpublished data) and supported by literature reports of similar improvements in accuracy with the use of full MMDM (Parmenter et al 2003). Grid buffers had rounded corners (Parmenter et al 2003) and were masked to avoid inclusion of ocean areas.…”

Methods and Routes of two German-Mongolian Zoological Expeditionsthrough the Steppe, Semi-Desert and Desert Zones of Mongolia in 1995 and 2002

“…Some gerbils were found in former burrows or close to colonies of Brandt's voles, as reported by Heptner (1949) and Naumov and Lobachev (1975). A long-term survey of the interrelationship of abundance changes for both species may be warranted, and new techniques for standardized environmental measures of density estimation should be applied (for review, see Parmenter et al 2003).…”