|
|
Dublin, H. T., Sinclair, A. R. E., Boutin, S., Anderson, E., Jago, M., & Arcese, P. (1990). Does competition regulate ungulate populations? Further evidence from Serengeti, Tanzania. Oecologia, 82(2), 283–288.
Abstract: Changes in populations of several ungulate species in the Serengeti-Mara region of East Africa over the past 30 years suggest several hypotheses for their regulation and coexistence. Recent censuses in the 1980s have allowed us to test the hypotheses that: (1) there was competition between wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus) and Thomson's gazelle (Gazella thomsoni). This predicted that gazelle numbers should have declined in the 1980s when wildebeest were food limited. Census figures show no change in gazelle numbers between 1978 and 1986, a result contrary to the interspecific competition hypothesis; (2) wildebeest and African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) populations were regulated by intraspecific competition for food. Since both populations reached food limitation in the 1970s, the hypothesis predicted that the populations should have been stable in the 1980s. The results confirm these predictions for wildebeest and the buffalo population in the Mara reserve. In the Serengeti the buffalo population declined 41% over the period 1976-1984. The decline was not evenly distributed over the park, some areas showing an 80-90% decline, others no change or an increase in numbers. The decline was associated with proximity to human habitation; (3) an outbreak of the viral disease, rinderpest, in 1982 may have been the cause of the drop in buffalo population. Blood serum samples to measure the prevalence of antibodies were collected from areas of decreasing, stable and increasing populations. If rinderpest was the cause of decrease there should be a negative relationship between the prevalence of rinderpest and the instantaneous rate of increase (r). The results showed no relationship. We conclude that rinderpest was not the major cause of the drop in buffalo numbers. Elephant (Loxodonta africana) numbers dropped 81% in Serengeti in the period 1977-1986. In the Mara there was little change. The evidence suggests that extensive poaching in northern and western Serengeti during 1979-1984 accounted for the drop in both elephant and buffalo numbers.
|
|
|
|
Burton, A. C., Neilson, E., Moreira, D., Ladle, A., Steenweg, R., Fisher, J. T., et al. (2015). REVIEW: Wildlife camera trapping: a review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes. J Appl Ecol, 52(3), 675–685.
Abstract: Summary Reliable assessment of animal populations is a long-standing challenge in wildlife ecology. Technological advances have led to widespread adoption of camera traps (CTs) to survey wildlife distribution, abundance and behaviour. As for any wildlife survey method, camera trapping must contend with sources of sampling error such as imperfect detection. Early applications focused on density estimation of naturally marked species, but there is growing interest in broad-scale CT surveys of unmarked populations and communities. Nevertheless, inferences based on detection indices are controversial, and the suitability of alternatives such as occupancy estimation is debatable. We reviewed 266 CT studies published between 2008 and 2013. We recorded study objectives and methodologies, evaluating the consistency of CT protocols and sampling designs, the extent to which CT surveys considered sampling error, and the linkages between analytical assumptions and species ecology. Nearly two-thirds of studies surveyed more than one species, and a majority used response variables that ignored imperfect detection (e.g. presence?absence, relative abundance). Many studies used opportunistic sampling and did not explicitly report details of sampling design and camera deployment that could affect conclusions. Most studies estimating density used capture?recapture methods on marked species, with spatially explicit methods becoming more prominent. Few studies estimated density for unmarked species, focusing instead on occupancy modelling or measures of relative abundance. While occupancy studies estimated detectability, most did not explicitly define key components of the modelling framework (e.g. a site) or discuss potential violations of model assumptions (e.g. site closure). Studies using relative abundance relied on assumptions of equal detectability, and most did not explicitly define expected relationships between measured responses and underlying ecological processes (e.g. animal abundance and movement). Synthesis and applications. The rapid adoption of camera traps represents an exciting transition in wildlife survey methodology. We remain optimistic about the technology's promise, but call for more explicit consideration of underlying processes of animal abundance, movement and detection by cameras, including more thorough reporting of methodological details and assumptions. Such transparency will facilitate efforts to evaluate and improve the reliability of camera trap surveys, ultimately leading to stronger inferences and helping to meet modern needs for effective ecological inquiry and biodiversity monitoring.
|
|
