in

A comparison of cost and quality of three methods for estimating density for wild pig (Sus scrofa)

  • 1.

    Mills, L. S. Conservation of Wildlife Populations: Demography, Genetics, and Management 1st edition. (Wiley/Blackwell Press, 2007).

  • 2.

    Pollock, K. H. et al. Large scale wildlife monitoring studies: statistical methods for design and analysis. Environmetrics: The official journal of the International Environmetrics Society 13, 105–119 (2002).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 3.

    Pavlacky, D. C., Blakesley, J. A., White, G. C., Hanni, D. J. & Lukacs, P. M. Hierarchical multi-scale occupancy estimation for monitoring wildlife populations. The Journal of Wildlife Management 76, 154–162, https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.245 (2012).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 4.

    Boyce, M. S. Population viability analysis. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23, 481–497 (1992).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 5.

    Morris, W. F. & Doak, D. F. Quantitative conservation biology. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA (2002).

  • 6.

    Frankham, R. Effective population size/adult population size ratios in wildlife: a review. Genetics Research 66, 95–107 (1995).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 7.

    Waithman, J. D. et al. Range expansion, population sizes, and management of Wild Pigs in California. The Journal of Wildlife Management 63, 298–308, https://doi.org/10.2307/3802513 (1999).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 8.

    Griffiths, M. & Van Schaik, C. P. The impact of human traffic on the abundance and activity periods of Sumatran rain forest wildlife. Conservation Biology 7, 623–626 (1993).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 9.

    Kelly, M. J. et al. Estimating puma densities from camera trapping across three study sites: Bolivia, Argentina, and Belize. Journal of Mammalogy 89, 408–418, https://doi.org/10.1644/06-MAMM-A-424R.1 (2008).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 10.

    McShea, W. J. The influence of acorn crops on annual variation in rodent and bird populations. Ecology 81, 228–238 (2000).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 11.

    Rich, L. N. et al. Comparing capture-recapture, mark-resight, and spatial mark-resight models for estimating puma densities via camera traps. Journal of Mammalogy 95, 382–391 (2014).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 12.

    Royle, J. A., Chandler, R. B., Sollmann, R. & Gardner, B. Spatial capture-recapture (Academic Press, 2013).

  • 13.

    Seber, G. A. F. The Estimation of Animal Abundance and Related Parameters, 2nd Edition. (Charles and Griffin and Company Limited, 1982).

  • 14.

    Buckland, S. T. et al. Introduction to Distance Sampling- Estimating abundance of biological populations. (Oxford University Press, 2001).

  • 15.

    Zippin, C. The removal method of population estimation. The Journal of Wildlife Management 22, 82–90, https://doi.org/10.2307/3797301 (1958).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 16.

    Ivan, J. S., White, G. C. & Shenk, T. M. Using simulation to compare methods for estimating density from capture–recapture data. Ecology 94, 817–826, https://doi.org/10.1890/12-0102.1 (2013).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 17.

    Lyra-Jorge, M. C., Ciocheti, G., Pivello, V. R. & Meirelles, S. T. Comparing methods for sampling large-and medium-sized mammals: camera traps and track plots. Eur J Wildl Res 54, 739–744 (2008).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 18.

    Larsen, D. P., Kincaid, T. M., Jacobs, S. E. & Urquhart, N. S. Designs for Evaluating Local and Regional Scale Trends: We describe a framework for evaluating the effects of spatial and temporal variation on the sensitivity of alternative ecological survey designs to detect regional temporal trends. Bioscience 51, 1069–1078 (2001).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 19.

    Staples, D. F., Taper, M. L. & Dennis, B. Estimating population trend and process variation for PVA in the presence of sampling error. Ecology 85, 923–929 (2004).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 20.

    Kéry, M. et al. Trend estimation in populations with imperfect detection. Journal of Applied Ecology 46, 1163–1172 (2009).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 21.

    Walsh, D. P., White, G. C., Remington, T. E. & Bowden, D. C. Evaluation of the lek‐count index for greater sage‐grouse. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32, 56–68 (2004).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 22.

    Gerber, B. D. & Parmenter, R. R. Spatial capture–recapture model performance with known small-mammal densities. Ecological Applications 25, 695–705, https://doi.org/10.1890/14-0960.1 (2015).

  • 23.

    Jůnek, T., Vymyslická, P. J., Hozdecká, K. & Hejcmanová, P. Application of Spatial and Closed Capture-Recapture Models on Known Population of the Western Derby Eland (Taurotragus derbianus derbianus) in Senegal. PLoS One 10, e0136525 (2015).

  • 24.

    Blanc, L., Marboutin, E., Gatti, S. & Gimenez, O. Abundance of rare and elusive species: empirical investigation of closed versus spatially explicit capture–recapture models with lynx as a case study. The Journal of Wildlife Management 77, 372–378 (2013).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 25.

    Parmenter, R. R. et al. Small-mammal density estimation: a field comparison of grid-based vs. web-based density estimators. Ecological Monographs 73, 1–26 (2003).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 26.

    Noss, A. J. et al. Comparison of density estimation methods for mammal populations with camera traps in the Kaa-Iya del Gran Chaco landscape. Animal Conservation 15, 527–535, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2012.00545.x (2012).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 27.

    Obbard, M. E., Howe, E. J. & Kyle, C. J. Empirical comparison of density estimators for large carnivores. Journal of Applied Ecology 47, 76–84 (2010).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 28.

    Janečka, J. E. et al. Comparison of noninvasive genetic and camera-trapping techniques for surveying snow leopards. Journal of Mammalogy 92, 771–783, https://doi.org/10.1644/10-MAMM-A-036.1 (2011).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 29.

    Keiter, D. A. et al. Effects of scale of movement, detection probability, and true population density on common methods of estimating population density. Scientific Reports 7, 9446, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09746-5 (2017).

  • 30.

    Giudice, J. H., Fieberg, J. R., Zicus, M. C., Rave, D. P. & Wright, R. G. Cost and precision functions for aerial quadrat surveys: a case study of ring-necked ducks in Minnesota. The Journal of Wildlife Management 74, 342–349, https://doi.org/10.2193/2008-507 (2010).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 31.

    Clare, J. D. J., Anderson, E. M., MACfarland, D. M. & Sloss, B. L. Comparing the costs and detectability of bobcat using scat‐detecting dog and remote camera surveys in central Wisconsin. Wildlife Society Bulletin 39, 210–217 (2015).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 32.

    Davis, A. J. et al. Inferring invasive species abundance using removal data from management actions. Ecological Applications 26, 2339–2346, https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1383 (2016).

  • 33.

    Royle, J. A. & Dorazio, R. M. Hierarchical modeling and inference in ecology: the analysis of data from populations, metapopulations and communities. (Academic Press, 2008).

  • 34.

    Lukacs, P. M. & Burnham, K. P. Review of capture–recapture methods applicable to noninvasive genetic sampling. Molecular Ecology 14, 3909–3919 (2005).

  • 35.

    Taberlet, P. et al. Noninvasive genetic tracking of the endangered Pyrenean brown bear population. Molecular Ecology 6, 869–876 (1997).

  • 36.

    Woods, J. G. et al. Genetic tagging of free-ranging black and brown bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 616–627 (1999).

  • 37.

    O’Connell, A. F., Nichols, J. D. & Karanth, K. U. Camera traps in animal ecology: methods and analyses. (Springer Science & Business Media, 2010).

  • 38.

    Tredick, C. A., Vaughan, M. R., Stauffer, D. F., Simek, S. L. & Eason, T. Sub-sampling genetic data to estimate black bear population size: a case study. Ursus 18, 179–188 (2007).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 39.

    Haight, R. G. & Polasky, S. Optimal control of an invasive species with imperfect information about the level of infestation. Resource and Energy Economics 32, 519–533 (2010).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 40.

    D’evelyn, S. T., Tarui, N., Burnett, K. & Roumasset, J. A. Learning-by-catching: uncertain invasive-species populations and the value of information. Journal of Environmental Management 89, 284–292 (2008).

  • 41.

    Maxwell, S. L. et al. How much is new information worth? Evaluating the financial benefit of resolving management uncertainty. Journal of Applied Ecology 52, 12–20 (2015).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 42.

    Barrios-Garcia, M. N. & Ballari, S. A. Impact of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in its introduced and native range: a review. Biol Invasions 14, 2283–2300, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0229-6 (2012).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 43.

    Keiter, D. A. & Beasley, J. Hog heaven? Challenges of managing introduced wild pigs in natural areas. Natural Areas Journal 37, 6–16 (2017).

  • 44.

    Bengsen, A. J., Gentle, M. N., Mitchell, J. L., Pearson, H. E. & Saunders, G. R. Impacts and management of wild pigs Sus scrofa in Australia. Mammal Review 44, 135–147 (2014).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 45.

    Bevins, S. N., Pedersen, K., Lutman, M. W., Gidlewski, T. & Deliberto, T. J. Consequences associated with the recent range expansion of nonnative Feral Swine. BioScience 64, 291–299, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu015 (2014).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 46.

    Anderson, A., Slootmaker, C., Harper, E., Holderieath, J. & Shwiff, S. A. Economic estimates of feral swine damage and control in 11 US states. Crop Protection 89, 89–94 (2016).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 47.

    Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R. & Morrison, D. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics 52, 273–288 (2005).

  • 48.

    Cruz, F., Donlan, C. J., Campbell, K. & Carrion, V. Conservation action in the Galapagos: feral pig (Sus scrofa) eradication from Santiago Island. Biological Conservation 121, 473–478 (2005).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 49.

    Hanson, L. B. et al. Effect of experimental manipulation on survival and recruitment of feral pigs. Wildlife Research 36, 185–191 (2009).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 50.

    Taberlet, P. & Luikart, G. Non-invasive genetic sampling and individual identification. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 68, 41–55 (1999).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 51.

    Waits, J. L. & Leberg, P. L. Biases associated with population estimation using molecular tagging. Animal Conservation 3, 191–199 (2000).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 52.

    Taberlet, P. et al. Reliable genotyping of samples with very low DNA quantities using PCR. Nucleic Acids Research 24, 3189–3194, https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/24.16.3189 (1996).

  • 53.

    Lonsinger, R. C. et al. Balancing sample accumulation and DNA degradation rates to optimize noninvasive genetic sampling of sympatric carnivores. Molecular Ecology Resources 15, 831–842, https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12356 (2015).

  • 54.

    Woodruff, S., Johnson, T. & Waits, L. Evaluating the interaction of faecal pellet deposition rates and DNA degradation rates to optimize sampling design for DNA‐based mark–recapture analysis of Sonoran pronghorn. Molecular Ecology Resources 15, 843–854 (2015).

  • 55.

    Tabak, M. A. et al. Machine learning to classify animal species in camera trap images: Applications in ecology. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10, 585–590, https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.13120 (2019).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 56.

    Silveira, L., Jacomo, A. T. & Diniz-Filho, J. A. F. Camera trap, line transect census and track surveys: a comparative evaluation. Biological conservation 114, 351–355 (2003).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 57.

    Thompson, W. L., White, G. C. & Gowan, C. Monitoring vertebrate populations. (Academic Press, 1998).

  • 58.

    Crouch, L. C. Movements of and habitat utilization by feral hogs at the Savannah River Plant, South Carolina, M.S. thesis, Clemson University (1983).

  • 59.

    Kay, S. L. et al. Quantifying drivers of wild pig movement across multiple spatial and temporal scales. Movement Ecology 5, 14 (2017).

  • 60.

    Schwarz, C. J. & Arnason, A. N. A general methodology for the analysis of capture-recapture experiments in open populations. Biometrics, 860–873 (1996).

  • 61.

    Hanson, L. B. et al. Change-in-ratio density estimator for feral pigs is less biased than closed mark–recapture estimates. Wildlife Research 35, 695–699, https://doi.org/10.1071/WR08076 (2008).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 62.

    Ebert, C., Knauer, F., Spielberger, B., Thiele, B. & Hohmann, U. Estimating wild boar Sus scrofa population size using faecal DNA and capture-recapture modelling. Wildlife Biology 18, 142–152, https://doi.org/10.2981/11-002 (2012).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 63.

    Baber, D. W. & Coblentz, B. E. Density, home range, habitat use, and reproduction in Feral Pigs on Santa Catalina Island. Journal of Mammalogy 67, 512–525, https://doi.org/10.2307/1381283 (1986).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 64.

    Efford, M. G., Borchers, D. L. & Byrom, A. E. In Modeling Demographic Processes In Marked Populations Vol. 3 Environmental and Ecological Statistics (eds. DavidL Thomson, EvanG Cooch, & Michael J. Conroy) Ch. 11, 255–269 (Springer US, 2009).

  • 65.

    Rosenberger, A. E. & Dunham, J. B. Validation of abundance estimates from mark–recapture and removal techniques for rainbow trout captured by electrofishing in small streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25, 1395–1410, https://doi.org/10.1577/M04-081.1 (2005).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 66.

    White, G. C. Capture-recapture and removal methods for sampling closed populations. (Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1982).

  • 67.

    Lewis, C. et al. Corral traps for capturing feral hogs. (Texas A&M University, Texas AgriLife Extension Service, 2009).

  • 68.

    Williams, B. L., Holtfreter, R. W., Ditchkoff, S. S. & Grand, J. B. Trap style influences wild pig behavior and trapping success. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75, 432–436, https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.64 (2011).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 69.

    Coblentz, B. E. & Baber, D. W. Biology and control of feral pigs on Isla Santiago, Galapagos, Ecuador. Journal of Applied Ecology, 403–418 (1987).

  • 70.

    Imm, D. W. & McLeod, K. W. Plant communities. Ecology and Management of a Forested Landscape: Fifty Years on the Savannah River Site, 106–161 (2005).

  • 71.

    Kierepka, E. M. et al. Identification of robust microsatellite markers for wild pig fecal DNA. The Journal of Wildlife Management (2016).

  • 72.

    Mayer, J. J. & Brisbin, I. L. Wild pigs in the United States: Their history, comparitive morphology, and current status. (University of Georgia Press, 2008).

  • 73.

    Keiter, D. A., Cunningham, F. L., Rhodes, O. E. Jr., Irwin, B. J. & Beasley, J. C. Optimization of scat detection methods for a social ungulate, the wild pig, and experimental evaluation of factors affecting detection of scat. PLoS One 11, e0155615 (2016).

  • 74.

    Sweitzer, R. A., Van Vuren, D., Gardner, I. A., Boyce, W. M. & Waithman, J. D. Estimating sizes of Wild Pig populations in the North and Central Coast Regions of California. The Journal of Wildlife Management 64, 531–543, https://doi.org/10.2307/3803251 (2000).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 75.

    Hebeisen, C., Fattebert, J., Baubet, E. & Fischer, C. Estimating wild boar (Sus scrofa) abundance and density using capture–resights in Canton of Geneva, Switzerland. Eur. J. Wildl Res 54, 391–401 (2008).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 76.

    Krause, E., Morrison, L., Reed, K. & Alexander, L. Radiation hybrid mapping of 273 previously unreported porcine microsatellites. Animal Genetics 33, 477–485 (2002).

  • 77.

    Rohrer, G. A. et al. A comprehensive map of the porcine genome. Genome Research 6, 371–391 (1996).

  • 78.

    Rohrer, G. A., Alexander, L. J., Keele, J. W., Smith, T. P. & Beattie, C. W. A microsatellite linkage map of the porcine genome. Genetics 136, 231–245 (1994).

  • 79.

    Wilberg, M. J. & Dreher, B. P. Genecap: a program for analysis of multilocus genotype data for non‐invasive sampling and capture‐recapture population estimation. Molecular Ecology Resources 4, 783–785 (2004).

    • Google Scholar
  • 80.

    Beasley, J. C., Grazia, T. E., Johns, P. E. & Mayer, J. J. Habitats associated with vehicle collisions with wild pigs. Wildlife Research 40, 654–660 (2013).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 81.

    Henry, V. G. Length of Estrous Cycle and Gestation in European Wild Hogs. The Journal of Wildlife Management 32, 406–408, https://doi.org/10.2307/3798986 (1968).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 82.

    Saunders, G. & McLeod, S. Predicting home range size from the body mass or population densities of feral pigs, Sus scrofa (Artiodactyla: Suidae). Australian Journal of Ecology 24, 538–543 (1999).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 83.

    Friebel, B. A. & Jodice, P. G. Home range and habitat use of feral hogs in Congaree National Park, South Carolina. Human-Wildlife Conflicts 3, 49–63 (2009).

    • Google Scholar
  • 84.

    Otis, D. L., Burnham, K. P., White, G. C. & Anderson, D. R. Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife Monographs, 3–135 (1978).

  • 85.

    Miller, C. R., Joyce, P. & Waits, L. P. A new method for estimating the size of small populations from genetic mark–recapture data. Molecular Ecology 14, 1991–2005, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02577.x (2005).

  • 86.

    secr: Spatially explicit capture-recapture models. R package version 2.10.3 (2016).

  • 87.

    R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing (Vienna, Austria, 2017).

  • 88.

    Farnsworth, G. L. et al. A removal model for estimating detection probabilities from point-count surveys. The Auk 119, 414–425, doi:10.1642/0004-8038(2002)119[0414:ARMFED]2.0.CO;2 (2002).

  • 89.

    splancs: Spatial and Space-Time Point Pattern Analysis (R package version 2.01–39, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=splancs 2016).

  • 90.

    Efford, M. G. Estimation of population density by spatially explicit capture–recapture analysis of data from area searches. Ecology 92, 2202–2207, https://doi.org/10.1890/11-0332.1 (2011).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar

  • Source: Ecology - nature.com

    Decarbonizing the making of consumer products

    Researchers develop a roadmap for growth of new solar cells