Free Standard AU & NZ Shipping For All Book Orders Over $80!
Register      Login
Wildlife Research Wildlife Research Society
Ecology, management and conservation in natural and modified habitats
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > WR > WR03119
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 32(3)

The evaluation of indices of animal abundance using spatial simulation of animal trapping

Dave Ramsey A D , Murray Efford C , Steve Ball B and Graham Nugent B
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Landcare Research, Private Bag 11052, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

B Landcare Research, PO Box 69, Lincoln, New Zealand.

C Landcare Research, Private Bag 1930, Dunedin, New Zealand.

D Corresponding author. Email: ramseyd@landcareresearch.co.nz

Wildlife Research 32(3) 229-237 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR03119
Submitted: 22 December 2003  Accepted: 21 February 2005   Published: 22 June 2005

Abstract

We apply a new algorithm for spatially simulating animal trapping that utilises a detection function and allows for competition between animals and traps. Estimates of the parameters of the detection function from field studies allowed us to simulate realistically the expected range of detection probabilities of brushtail possums caught in traps. Using this model we evaluated a common index of population density of brushtail possums based on the percentage of leg-hold traps catching possums. Using field estimates of the parameters of the detection function, we simulated the relationship between the trap-catch index and population density. The relationship was linear up to densities of 10 possums ha–1. We also investigated the accuracy (bias and precision) of the trap-catch index for possums to estimate relative changes in population density (relative abundance) under conditions of varying detection probability, and compared these results with those obtained using a removal estimate of the population in the vicinity of trap lines. The ratio of trap-catch indices was a more precise estimator of relative abundance than the ratio of removal estimates but was positively biased (i.e. overestimated relative abundance). In contrast, the ratio of removal estimates was relatively unbiased but imprecise. Despite the positive bias, the trap-catch index had a higher power to determine the correct ranking between population densities than the removal estimate. Although varying detection probability can bias estimates of relative abundance using indices, we show that the potential for bias to lead to an incorrect result is small for indices of brushtail possum density based on trapping.


Acknowledgments

We thank Greg Arnold for his assistance with the algorithm for the stochastic generation of g(0) and σ used in the half-normal detection function.


References

Anderson, D. R. (2001). The need to get the basics right in wildlife field studies. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29, 1294–1297.
Buckland S. T. Anderson D. R. , Burnham K. P. , Laake J. , and (1993). ‘Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations.’ (Chapman & Hall: London.)

Burnham K. P. Anderson D. R. , and (1998). ‘Model Selection and Inference: a Practical Information-Theoretic Approach.’ (Springer-Verlag: New York.)

Caughley G. (1977). ‘Analysis of Vertebrate Populations.’ (John Wiley & Sons: London.)

Caughley G. Sinclair A. R. E. , and (1994). ‘Wildlife Ecology and Management.’ (Blackwell Scientific Publications: Cambridge, MA.)

Davis, S. A. , Akison, L. K. , Farroway, L. N. , Singleton, G. R. , and Leslie, K. E. (2003). Abundance estimators and truth: accounting for individual heterogeneity in wild house mice. Journal of Wildlife Management 67, 634–645.
Efford M. (2000). Possum density, population structure, and dynamics. In ‘The Brushtail Possum: Biology, Impact and Management of an Introduced Marsupial’. (Ed. T. L. Montague.) pp. 47–61. (Manaaki Whenua Press: Lincoln, NZ.)

Efford, M. (2004). Density estimation in live trapping studies. Oikos 106, 598–610.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | NPCA(2000). Unit 3.1. Trap-catch for monitoring possum populations – protocol for designers. National Possum Control Agencies, Wellington. New Zealand.

Otis, D. L. , Burnham, K. P. , White, G. C. , and Anderson, D. R. (1978). Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife Monographs 62, 1–135.
Seber G. A. F. (1982). ‘The Estimation of Animal Abundance.’ (Charles Griffin & Co: London.)

Skalski, J. R. , Robson, D. S. , and Simmons, M. A. (1983). Comparative census procedures using single mark–recapture methods. Ecology 64, 752–760.
Sokal R. R. Rohlf F. J. , and (1995). ‘Biometry.’ (W.H. Freeman and Co.: New York.)

Steiner, A. J. (1983). Comtrap: a trapping simulation interactive computer program. Journal of Wildlife Management 47, 561–567.
Williams B. K. Nichols J. D. , Conroy M. J. , and (2002). ‘Analysis and Management of Animal Populations.’ (Academic Press: San Diego, CA.)

Zarnoch, S. J. (1979). Simulation of effects of learned trap response on three estimators of population size. Journal of Wildlife Management 43, 474–483.
(y-axis). Solid line represents a 1 : 1 relationship.