Standardizing methods to estimate population density: an example based on habituated and unhabituated spider monkeys
Biodiversity and Conservation, ISSN: 1572-9710, Vol: 28, Issue: 4, Page: 847-862
2019
- 11Citations
- 51Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Population estimates are critical for making informed conservation decisions. However, methods for data collection and analysis of population estimates from wildlife surveys vary, often preventing comparisons between sites or years. In this study we compared population density estimates of spider monkeys, Ateles geoffroyi, derived from four commonly used methods to the actual density estimate based on known individual monkeys and home-range size and corroborated these results with surveys done on unhabituated monkeys in the same area. We recorded perpendicular distances of individual monkeys in the Otoch Ma’ax yetel Kooh Protected Area during two surveys: within the home range of an individually-recognized spider monkey group (survey one) and largely outside of the home range (survey two). We sighted 278 and 76 spider monkeys for a total effort of 93.74 and 42.78 km in surveys one and two, respectively. The actual density estimate was 65.4 individuals/km (survey one). This value lies closer to the population density estimate obtained using the Kelker method (58.2 individuals/km ) than conventional distance sampling (CDS; 92.9–93.8 individuals/km ). Density estimates obtained with King and maximum perpendicular distance methods deviated substantially from the actual density. Population density estimates using the Kelker method and CDS differed less in survey two. Population density estimates differed little whether transects were walked slow or fast. We recommend using the Kelker method and CDS to estimate population density with a correction for distance estimation errors. We demonstrate how studies on populations of known size can improve the methods to survey populations of unknown size.
Bibliographic Details
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know