Staff Publications

Staff Publications

  • external user (warningwarning)
  • Log in as
  • language uk
  • About

    'Staff publications' is the digital repository of Wageningen University & Research

    'Staff publications' contains references to publications authored by Wageningen University staff from 1976 onward.

    Publications authored by the staff of the Research Institutes are available from 1995 onwards.

    Full text documents are added when available. The database is updated daily and currently holds about 240,000 items, of which 72,000 in open access.

    We have a manual that explains all the features 

Record number 539588
Title Pictures or pellets? Comparing camera trapping and dung counts as methods for estimating population densities of ungulates
Author(s) Pfeffer, Sabine E.; Spitzer, Robert; Allen, Andrew M.; Hofmeester, Tim R.; Ericsson, Göran; Widemo, Fredrik; Singh, Navinder J.; Cromsigt, Joris P.G.M.
Source Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation 4 (2018)2. - ISSN 2056-3485 - p. 173 - 183.
Department(s) Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Publication type Refereed Article in a scientific journal
Publication year 2018
Keyword(s) Camera traps - pellet counts - population estimates - random encounter model - ungulates - wildlife monitoring

Across the northern hemisphere, land use changes and, possibly, warmer winters are leading to more abundant and diverse ungulate communities causing increased socioeconomic and ecological consequences. Reliable population estimates are crucial for sustainable management, but it is currently unclear which monitoring method is most suitable to track changes in multi-species assemblages. We compared dung counts and camera trapping as two non-invasive census methods to estimate population densities of moose Alces alces and roe deer Capreolus capreolus in Northern Sweden. For camera trapping, we tested the random encounter model (REM) which can estimate densities without the need to recognize individual animals. We evaluated different simplification options of the REM in terms of estimates of detection distance and angle (raw data vs. modelled) and of daily movement rate (camera trap based vs. telemetry based). In comparison to density estimates from camera traps, we found that, dung counts appeared to underestimate population density for roe deer, but not for moose. Estimates of detection distance and angle from modelled versus raw camera data resulted in nearly identical outcomes. The telemetry-derived daily movement rate for moose and roe deer resulted in much higher density estimates than the camera trap-derived estimates. We suggest that camera trapping may be a robust complement to dung counts when monitoring ungulate communities, particularly when similarities between dung pellets from sympatric deer species make unambiguous assignment difficult. Moreover, we show that a simplified use of the REM method holds great potential for large-scale citizen science-based programmes (e.g. involving hunters) that can track the rapidly changing European wildlife landscape. We suggest to include camera trapping in management programmes, where the analysis can be verified via web-based applications.

There are no comments yet. You can post the first one!
Post a comment
Please log in to use this service. Login as Wageningen University & Research user or guest user in upper right hand corner of this page.