Testing camera trap density estimates from the spatial capture model and calibrated capture rate indices against kangaroo rat (Dipodomys spp.) live trapping data

<p>Camera trapping studies often focus on estimating population density, which is critical for managing wild populations. Density estimators typically require unique markers such as stripe patterns to identify individuals but most animals do not have such markings. The spatial capture model (S...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Walker, Timothy A.
Language:EN
Published: San Jose State University 2016
Subjects:
Online Access:http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/#viewpdf?dispub=10169614
id ndltd-PROQUEST-oai-pqdtoai.proquest.com-10169614
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-PROQUEST-oai-pqdtoai.proquest.com-101696142016-11-03T16:01:33Z Testing camera trap density estimates from the spatial capture model and calibrated capture rate indices against kangaroo rat (Dipodomys spp.) live trapping data Walker, Timothy A. Wildlife management|Biostatistics|Animal sciences <p>Camera trapping studies often focus on estimating population density, which is critical for managing wild populations. Density estimators typically require unique markers such as stripe patterns to identify individuals but most animals do not have such markings. The spatial capture model (SC model; Chandler & Royle, 2013) estimates density without individual identification but lacks sufficient field testing. Here, both the SC model and calibrated capture rate indices were compared against ten sessions of live trapping data on kangaroo rats (Dipodomys spp). These camera and live trapping data were combined in a joint-likelihood model to further compare the two methods. From these comparisons, the factors governing the SC model?s success were scrutinized. Additionally, a method for estimating missed captures was developed and tested here. Regressions comparing live trapping density to the SC model density and capture rate were significant only for the capture rate comparison. Missed image rate had a significant relationship with ambient nighttime temperatures but only marginally improved the capture rate index calibration. Results showed the SC model was highly sensitive to deviations from its movement model, producing potentially misleading results. The model may be effective only when movement assumptions hold. Several factors such as camera coverage area, microhabitat, and burrow locations could be incorporated into the SC model density estimation process to improve precision and inference. San Jose State University 2016-11-01 00:00:00.0 thesis http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/#viewpdf?dispub=10169614 EN
collection NDLTD
language EN
sources NDLTD
topic Wildlife management|Biostatistics|Animal sciences
spellingShingle Wildlife management|Biostatistics|Animal sciences
Walker, Timothy A.
Testing camera trap density estimates from the spatial capture model and calibrated capture rate indices against kangaroo rat (Dipodomys spp.) live trapping data
description <p>Camera trapping studies often focus on estimating population density, which is critical for managing wild populations. Density estimators typically require unique markers such as stripe patterns to identify individuals but most animals do not have such markings. The spatial capture model (SC model; Chandler & Royle, 2013) estimates density without individual identification but lacks sufficient field testing. Here, both the SC model and calibrated capture rate indices were compared against ten sessions of live trapping data on kangaroo rats (Dipodomys spp). These camera and live trapping data were combined in a joint-likelihood model to further compare the two methods. From these comparisons, the factors governing the SC model?s success were scrutinized. Additionally, a method for estimating missed captures was developed and tested here. Regressions comparing live trapping density to the SC model density and capture rate were significant only for the capture rate comparison. Missed image rate had a significant relationship with ambient nighttime temperatures but only marginally improved the capture rate index calibration. Results showed the SC model was highly sensitive to deviations from its movement model, producing potentially misleading results. The model may be effective only when movement assumptions hold. Several factors such as camera coverage area, microhabitat, and burrow locations could be incorporated into the SC model density estimation process to improve precision and inference.
author Walker, Timothy A.
author_facet Walker, Timothy A.
author_sort Walker, Timothy A.
title Testing camera trap density estimates from the spatial capture model and calibrated capture rate indices against kangaroo rat (Dipodomys spp.) live trapping data
title_short Testing camera trap density estimates from the spatial capture model and calibrated capture rate indices against kangaroo rat (Dipodomys spp.) live trapping data
title_full Testing camera trap density estimates from the spatial capture model and calibrated capture rate indices against kangaroo rat (Dipodomys spp.) live trapping data
title_fullStr Testing camera trap density estimates from the spatial capture model and calibrated capture rate indices against kangaroo rat (Dipodomys spp.) live trapping data
title_full_unstemmed Testing camera trap density estimates from the spatial capture model and calibrated capture rate indices against kangaroo rat (Dipodomys spp.) live trapping data
title_sort testing camera trap density estimates from the spatial capture model and calibrated capture rate indices against kangaroo rat (dipodomys spp.) live trapping data
publisher San Jose State University
publishDate 2016
url http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/#viewpdf?dispub=10169614
work_keys_str_mv AT walkertimothya testingcameratrapdensityestimatesfromthespatialcapturemodelandcalibratedcapturerateindicesagainstkangarooratdipodomysspplivetrappingdata
_version_ 1718390804418920448