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 > WR04003
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 32(3)

Wildlife population monitoring: some practical considerations

Gary W. Witmer
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

USDA National Wildlife Research Center, 4101 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521-2154, USA. Email: Gary.W.Witmer@aphis.usda.gov

Wildlife Research 32(3) 259-263 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR04003
Submitted: 10 January 2004  Accepted: 21 February 2005   Published: 22 June 2005

Abstract

The accurate estimation of wildlife population density is difficult and requires considerable investment of resources and time. Population indices are easier to obtain but are influenced by many unknowns and the relationships to actual population densities are usually unclear. Wildlife biologists, whether in the public or private sector, often find themselves in difficult situations where a resource manager or landowner wants good information, quickly, at low cost, and without clear objectives. In many situations, in addition to establishing clear objectives, a budget and timeframe, a biologist must understand and deal with the reality of many logistical concerns that will make the achievement of the objectives difficult or impossible. The situation is often complicated because the biology and ecology of the species of interest may be poorly understood in the specific setting and the species may be very rare or strongly influenced by current or past human activities. Methods to monitor a wildlife population may need to be tested or validated, extending the time and resources needed to complete the assigned task. In this paper, I discuss many of the challenges faced and the decisions to be made when a biologist is requested to provide useful, timely information on the status of a wildlife population.


References

Allen, L. , Engeman, R. , and Krupa, H. (1996). Evaluation of three relative abundance indices for assessing dingo populations. Wildlife Research 23, 197–206.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Caughley G. (1977). ‘Analysis of Vertebrate Populations.’ (John Wiley and Sons: New York.)

Davis D. E. (1982). ‘CRC Handbook of Census Methods for Terrestrial Vertebrates.’ (CRC Press Inc.: Boca Raton, FL.)

Dodd, M. G. , and Murphy, T. M. (1995). Accuracy and precision of techniques for counting great blue heron nests. Journal of Wildlife Management 59, 667–673.
Engeman R. M., and Witmer G. W. (2000). IPM strategies: indexing difficult to monitor populations of pest species. In ‘Proceedings of the 19th Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Eds T. P. Salmon and A. C. Crabb.) pp. 183–189. (University of California: Davis, CA.)

Foran, D. R. , Minta, S. C. , and Heinemeyer, K. S. (1997). DNA-based analysis of hair to identify species and individuals for population research and monitoring. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25, 84–0847.
Lancia R. A., Nichols J. D., and Pollock K. H. (1994). Estimating the number of animals in wildlife populations. In ‘Research and Management Techniques for Wildlife and Habitats’. (Ed. T. A. Bookhout.) pp. 215–253. (The Wildlife Society: Bethesda, MD.)

Litvaitis, M. K. , and Litvaitis, J. A. (1996). Using mitochondrial DNA to inventory the distribution of remnant populations of New England cottontails. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24, 725–730.
Schneider B. A. (1982). ‘Pesticide Assessment Guidelines.’ (US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC.)

Schwartz, C. J. , and Seber, G. A. F. (1999). Estimating animal abundance: review III. Statistical Science 14, 427–456.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Seber G. A. F. (1982). ‘The Estimation of Animal Abundance.’ 2nd edn. (MacMillan Publishing Company Inc.: New York.)

Seber, G. A. F. (1986). A review of estimating animal abundance. Biometrics 42, 267–292.
| PubMed | Thompson W. L., White G. C., and Gowan C. (1998). ‘Monitoring Vertebrate Populations.’ (Academic Press Inc.: New York.)

Tracey, J. P. , Fleming, P. J. , and Melville, G. J. (2005). Does variable probability of detection compromise the use of indices in aerial surveys of medium-sized mammals? Wildlife Research 32, 245–252.