|
Stecken, P. (2015). Bemerkungen und Zusammenhänge.
|
Hofmeester, T. R., Cromsigt, J. P. G. M., Odden, J., Andrén, H., Kindberg, J., & Linnell, J. D. C. (2019). Framing pictures: A conceptual framework to identify and correct for biases in detection probability of camera traps enabling multi-species comparison. Ecol Evol, .
Abstract: Abstract Obtaining reliable species observations is of great importance in animal ecology and wildlife conservation. An increasing number of studies use camera traps (CTs) to study wildlife communities, and an increasing effort is made to make better use and reuse of the large amounts of data that are produced. It is in these circumstances that it becomes paramount to correct for the species- and study-specific variation in imperfect detection within CTs. We reviewed the literature and used our own experience to compile a list of factors that affect CT detection of animals. We did this within a conceptual framework of six distinct scales separating out the influences of (a) animal characteristics, (b) CT specifications, (c) CT set-up protocols, and (d) environmental variables. We identified 40 factors that can potentially influence the detection of animals by CTs at these six scales. Many of these factors were related to only a few overarching parameters. Most of the animal characteristics scale with body mass and diet type, and most environmental characteristics differ with season or latitude such that remote sensing products like NDVI could be used as a proxy index to capture this variation. Factors that influence detection at the microsite and camera scales are probably the most important in determining CT detection of animals. The type of study and specific research question will determine which factors should be corrected. Corrections can be done by directly adjusting the CT metric of interest or by using covariates in a statistical framework. Our conceptual framework can be used to design better CT studies and help when analyzing CT data. Furthermore, it provides an overview of which factors should be reported in CT studies to make them repeatable, comparable, and their data reusable. This should greatly improve the possibilities for global scale analyses of (reused) CT data.
|
Broekhuis, F., Madsen, E. K., & Klaassen, B. (2019). Predators and pastoralists: how anthropogenic pressures inside wildlife areas influence carnivore space use and movement behaviour. Anim Conserv, .
Abstract: Abstract Across the globe, wildlife populations and their behaviours are negatively impacted by people. Protected areas are believed to be an antidote to increasing human pressures but even they are not immune to the impact of anthropogenic activities. Areas that have been set aside for the protection of wildlife therefore warrant more attention when investigating the impact of anthropogenic pressures on wildlife. We use cheetahs Acinonyx jubatus as a case study to explore how a large carnivore responds to anthropogenic pressures inside wildlife areas. Using GPS-collar data we investigate cheetah space use, both when moving and stationary, and movement parameters (speed and turn angles) in relation to human disturbance, distance to human settlement, livestock abundance and livestock site use inside wildlife areas. Space use was negatively influenced by human disturbance, resulting in habitat loss and fragmentation and potentially reducing landscape permeability between neighbouring wildlife areas. Cheetahs were also less likely to stop in areas where livestock numbers were high, but more likely to stop in areas that were frequently used by livestock. The latter could reflect that cheetahs are attracted to livestock however, cheetahs in the study area rarely predated on livestock. It is therefore more likely that areas that are frequently used by livestock attract wild herbivores, which in turn could influence cheetah space use. We did not find any effects of people and livestock on cheetahs? speed and turn angles which might be related to the resolution of the data. We found that cheetahs are sensitive to human pressures and we believe that they could be an indicator species for other large carnivores facing similar challenges. We suggest that further research is needed to determine the levels of anthropogenic pressures needed to maintain ecological integrity, especially inside wildlife areas.
|
|
Lee, P. (1991). Adaptation to environmental change:an evolutionary perspective. In H. O. Box (Ed.), Primate responses to environmental changes (pp. 39–56). London: Chapmann & Hall.
|
|
Beck, B. B. (1980). Animal tool behaviour: The use and manufacture of tools by animals. New York: Garland.
|
|
Fisher, J., & Hinde, R. A. (1994). The opening of milk bottles by birds. British Birds, (42), 347–357.
|
|
Thorpe, W. H. (1963). Learning and Instinct in Animals. London: Methuen.
|
|
Reader, S. M., & Laland, K. N. (2003). Animal Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|
|
Sol, D. (2003). Behavioural flexibility: a neglected issue in the ecological and evolutionary literature. In S. M. Reader and K. N. Laland (Ed.), Animal innovation. (pp. 63–82). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|
|
Lee, P. C. (2003). Innovation as a behavioural response to environmental challenges. In S. M. Reader and K. N. Laland (Ed.), Animal Innovation (pp. 261–279). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|
