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 > WR03120
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 32(3)

Indexing principles and a widely applicable paradigm for indexing animal populations

Richard M. Engeman
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

National Wildlife Research Center, 4101 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521-2154, USA. Email: richard.m.engeman@aphis.usda.gov

Wildlife Research 32(3) 203-210 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR03120
Submitted: 22 December 2003  Accepted: 3 March 2005   Published: 22 June 2005

Abstract

Monitoring animal populations is an essential component of wildlife research and management. Population indices can be efficient methods for monitoring populations when more labour-intensive density-estimation procedures are impractical or invalid to apply, and many monitoring objectives can be couched in an indexing framework. Indexing procedures obtain maximal utility if they exhibit key characteristics, including being practical to apply, being sensitive to changes or differences in the target species’ population, having an inherent variance formula and allowing for precision in index values, and relying on as few assumptions as possible. Additional useful characteristics include being able simultaneously to monitor multiple animal species and to describe spatial characteristics of the species monitored. Here, a paradigm is presented that promotes the characteristics that make indices most useful. Observations are made at stations located throughout the area of interest. Stations can take many forms, depending on the observations, and range from points for visual counts to tracking plots to chew cards, and many others. A wide variety of observation methods for many animal species can fit into this format. Observations are made at each station on multiple occasions for each indexing session. Geographic location data for each station are encouraged to be collected. No assumptions of independence are made among stations, nor among observation occasions. Measurements made at each station are required to be continuous or unboundedly discrete. The formula for a general index to describe population levels is presented and its variance formula is derived. Issues relevant to the application of this methodology, and indices in general, are discussed.


Acknowledgments

J. Bourassa and M. Pierce provided valuable help with identifying software for measuring areas. K. Fagerstone, B. Kimball, T. Mathies, R. Sterner and K. VerCauteren provided helpful reviews of the manuscript.


References

Allen, L. , Engeman, R. M. , and Krupa, H. (1996). Evaluation of three relative abundance indices for assessing dingo populations. Wildlife Research 23, 197–206.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Anthony R. M. , and Barnes V. G. Jr (1983). Plot occupancy for indicating pocket gopher abundance and conifer damage. In ‘Vertebrate Pest Control and Management Materials: Fourth Symposium, ASTM STP 817’. (Ed. D. E. Kaukeinen.) pp. 247–255. (American Society for Testing and Materials: Philadelphia, PA.)

Barret, R. H. (1983). Smoked aluminum track plots for determining furbearer distribution and relative abundance. California Department of Fish and Game 69, 188–190.
Caughley G. (1977). ‘Analysis of Vertebrate Populations.’ (Wiley & Sons: New York.)

Caughley G. , and Sinclair A. (1994). ‘Wildlife Ecology and Management.’ (Blackwell Science: Cambridge, MA.)

Caughley J. , Donkin C. , and Strong K. (1998). Managing mouse plagues in rural Australia. In ‘Proceedings of the Eighteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference’. pp. 160–165.

Chitty D. (1954). ‘Control of Rats and Mice.’ (Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK.)

Choquenot D. , McIlroy J. , and Korn T. (1996). ‘Managing Vertebrate Pests: Feral Pigs.’ (Bureau of Resource Sciences, Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra.)

Davison R. P. (1980). The effects of exploitation on some parameters of coyote populations. Ph.D. Thesis, Utah State University, Logan, UT.

Engeman, R. M. (2003). More on the need to get the basics right: population indices. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31, 286–287.
Engeman R. M. , and Witmer G. W. (2000). IPM strategies: indexing difficult to monitor populations of pest species. ‘Proceedings of the Nineteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference’. pp. 183–189.

Engeman, R. M. , Campbell, D. L. , and Evans, J. (1993). A comparison of 2 activity measures for northern pocket gophers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21, 70–73.
Engeman R. M. , Otis D. L. , Bromaghin J. F. , and Dusenberry W. E. (1989). On the use of the R50. In ‘Vertebrate Pest Control and Management Materials. Vol. 6, STP1055’. (Eds K. Fagerstone and R. Curnow.) pp. 13–18. (American Society for Testing and Materials: Philadelphia, PA.)

Engeman, R. M. , Pipas, M. J. , Gruver, K. S. , and Allen, L. (2000). Monitoring coyote populations with a passive activity index. Wildlife Research 27, 553–557.
Fiedler L. A. (1994). ‘Rodent Pest Management in Eastern Africa.’ (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome.)

Hopkins, B. (1954). A new method for determining the type of distribution of plant individuals. Annals of Botany 18, 213–227.
Krebs C. J. (1998). ‘Ecological Methodology.’ (Benjamin/Cummings: Menlo Park, CA.)

Leidloff A. C. (2000). Habitat utilisation by the grassland melomys (Melomys burtoni) and the swamp rat (Rattus lutrelus) in a coastal heathland of Bribie Island, south-east Queensland. Ph.D. Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.

Mahon, P. S. , Banks, P. B. , and Dickman, C. R. (1998). Population indices for wild carnivores: a critical study in sand dune habitat, south-western Queensland. Wildlife Research 25, 11–22.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Robbins C. S. , Bystrack D. , and Geissler P. H. (1986). The breeding bird survey: its first fifteen years, 1965–1979. Fish and Wildlife Service Research Publication No. 157. (USDI: Washington, DC.)

Ryan, D. A. , and Heywood, A. (2003). Improving the precision of longitudinal ecological surveys using precisely defined observational units. Environmetrics 14, 283–293.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | SAS Institute (1996). ‘SAS/STAT User’s Guide.’ (SAS Institute: Carey, NC.)

Searle S. R. , Casella G. , and McCulloch C. E. (1992). ‘Variance Components.’ (Wiley & Sons: New York.)

Servoss, W. , Engeman, R. M. , Fairaizl, S. , Cummings, J. L. , and Groninger, N. P. (2000). Wildlife hazard assessment at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 45, 111–127.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Stancyk S. E. (1982). Non-human predators of sea turtles and their control. In ‘Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles’. (Ed. K. A. Bjorndal.) pp. 139–152. (Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, DC.)

Tobin, M. E. , Richmond, M. E. , and Engeman, R. M. (1992). Comparison of methods for detecting voles under apple trees. Proceedings of the Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference 5, 201–204.
Zielinski W. J. , and Kucera T. E. (1995). American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine: survey methods for their detection. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-157. (USDA/Forest Service: Albany, CA.)




Appendix 1. Example for calculating the General Index

The data in Table 2 were collected for assessing a dingo population on a cattle station in south-west Queensland, Australia. A sample of s = 50 tracking plots was placed on dirt roads throughout the study area and observed for d = 4 consecutive days. The number of track intrusions into each plot by dingoes was observed each day. The average number of sets of intrusions per plot per day were 0.94, 0.82, 1.30, 0.82 for Days 1, 2, 3, 4, respectively (Table 2). The GI index value was calculated as:

(0.94 + 0.82 + 1.30 + 0.82)/4 = 0.97.

Application of VARCOMP in SAS produced variance component estimates of σ s 2 = 0.1075, σ d 2 = 0.0199, and σe 2 = 1.5767. We can use the equal-sample-size formula because all plots were measurable on each of the four days, i.e. p1 = p2 = p3 = p4 = 50 for Days 1–4. Insertion of the above information into the equal-sample-size equation for var(GI) yields:

var(GI) = 0.1075/50 + 0.0199/4 + 1.5767/200 = 0.0150

standard error (s.e.) = 0.122

coefficient of variation (c.v.) = 0.126.