Bias in little owl population estimates using playback techniques during surveys

To test the efficiency of playback methods to survey little owl (Athene noctua) populations we carried out two studies: (1) we recorded the replies of radio–tagged little owls to calls in a small area; (2) we recorded call broadcasts to estimate the effectiveness of the method to detect the presence...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Zuberogoitia, I., Zabala, J., Martínez, J. E.
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Museu de Ciències Naturals de Barcelona 2011-12-01
Series:Animal Biodiversity and Conservation
Subjects:
Online Access:http://abc.museucienciesjournals.cat/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/ABC-34-2-pp-395-400.pdf
id doaj-74a172de400d40d7b8341876146b741a
record_format Article
spelling doaj-74a172de400d40d7b8341876146b741a2020-11-24T22:10:25ZengMuseu de Ciències Naturals de BarcelonaAnimal Biodiversity and Conservation1578-665X2011-12-01342395400Bias in little owl population estimates using playback techniques during surveysZuberogoitia, I.Zabala, J.Martínez, J. E.To test the efficiency of playback methods to survey little owl (Athene noctua) populations we carried out two studies: (1) we recorded the replies of radio–tagged little owls to calls in a small area; (2) we recorded call broadcasts to estimate the effectiveness of the method to detect the presence of little owl. In the first study, we detected an average of 8.12 owls in the 30′ survey period, a number that is close to the real population; we also detected significant little owl movements from the initial location (before the playback) to the next locations during the survey period. However, we only detected an average of 2.25 and 5.37 little owls in the first 5′ and 10′, respectively, of the survey time. In the second study, we detected 137 little owl territories in 105 positive sample units. The occupation rate was 0.35, the estimated occupancy was 0.393, and the probability of detection was 0.439. The estimated cumulative probability of detection suggests that a minimum of four sampling times would be needed in an extensive survey to detect 95% of the areas occupied by little owls.http://abc.museucienciesjournals.cat/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/ABC-34-2-pp-395-400.pdfLittle owlSurvey methodsPresence ProgramDetection efficiencyVocal activity
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Zuberogoitia, I.
Zabala, J.
Martínez, J. E.
spellingShingle Zuberogoitia, I.
Zabala, J.
Martínez, J. E.
Bias in little owl population estimates using playback techniques during surveys
Animal Biodiversity and Conservation
Little owl
Survey methods
Presence Program
Detection efficiency
Vocal activity
author_facet Zuberogoitia, I.
Zabala, J.
Martínez, J. E.
author_sort Zuberogoitia, I.
title Bias in little owl population estimates using playback techniques during surveys
title_short Bias in little owl population estimates using playback techniques during surveys
title_full Bias in little owl population estimates using playback techniques during surveys
title_fullStr Bias in little owl population estimates using playback techniques during surveys
title_full_unstemmed Bias in little owl population estimates using playback techniques during surveys
title_sort bias in little owl population estimates using playback techniques during surveys
publisher Museu de Ciències Naturals de Barcelona
series Animal Biodiversity and Conservation
issn 1578-665X
publishDate 2011-12-01
description To test the efficiency of playback methods to survey little owl (Athene noctua) populations we carried out two studies: (1) we recorded the replies of radio–tagged little owls to calls in a small area; (2) we recorded call broadcasts to estimate the effectiveness of the method to detect the presence of little owl. In the first study, we detected an average of 8.12 owls in the 30′ survey period, a number that is close to the real population; we also detected significant little owl movements from the initial location (before the playback) to the next locations during the survey period. However, we only detected an average of 2.25 and 5.37 little owls in the first 5′ and 10′, respectively, of the survey time. In the second study, we detected 137 little owl territories in 105 positive sample units. The occupation rate was 0.35, the estimated occupancy was 0.393, and the probability of detection was 0.439. The estimated cumulative probability of detection suggests that a minimum of four sampling times would be needed in an extensive survey to detect 95% of the areas occupied by little owls.
topic Little owl
Survey methods
Presence Program
Detection efficiency
Vocal activity
url http://abc.museucienciesjournals.cat/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/ABC-34-2-pp-395-400.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT zuberogoitiai biasinlittleowlpopulationestimatesusingplaybacktechniquesduringsurveys
AT zabalaj biasinlittleowlpopulationestimatesusingplaybacktechniquesduringsurveys
AT martinezje biasinlittleowlpopulationestimatesusingplaybacktechniquesduringsurveys
_version_ 1725808287996182528