1
|
Chen C, Granados A, Brodie JF, Kays R, Davies TJ, Liu R, Fisher JT, Ahumada J, McShea W, Sheil D, Mohd-Azlan J, Agwanda B, Andrianarisoa MH, Appleton RD, Bitariho R, Espinosa S, Grigione MM, Helgen KM, Hubbard A, Hurtado CM, Jansen PA, Jiang X, Jones A, Kalies EL, Kiebou-Opepa C, Li X, Lima MGM, Meyer E, Miller AB, Murphy T, Piana R, Quan RC, Rota CT, Rovero F, Santos F, Schuttler S, Uduman A, van Bommel JK, Young H, Burton AC. Combining camera trap surveys and IUCN range maps to improve knowledge of species distributions. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2024; 38:e14221. [PMID: 37937455 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14221] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2022] [Revised: 10/05/2023] [Accepted: 10/31/2023] [Indexed: 11/09/2023]
Abstract
Reliable maps of species distributions are fundamental for biodiversity research and conservation. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) range maps are widely recognized as authoritative representations of species' geographic limits, yet they might not always align with actual occurrence data. In recent area of habitat (AOH) maps, areas that are not habitat have been removed from IUCN ranges to reduce commission errors, but their concordance with actual species occurrence also remains untested. We tested concordance between occurrences recorded in camera trap surveys and predicted occurrences from the IUCN and AOH maps for 510 medium- to large-bodied mammalian species in 80 camera trap sampling areas. Across all areas, cameras detected only 39% of species expected to occur based on IUCN ranges and AOH maps; 85% of the IUCN only mismatches occurred within 200 km of range edges. Only 4% of species occurrences were detected by cameras outside IUCN ranges. The probability of mismatches between cameras and the IUCN range was significantly higher for smaller-bodied mammals and habitat specialists in the Neotropics and Indomalaya and in areas with shorter canopy forests. Our findings suggest that range and AOH maps rarely underrepresent areas where species occur, but they may more often overrepresent ranges by including areas where a species may be absent, particularly at range edges. We suggest that combining range maps with data from ground-based biodiversity sensors, such as camera traps, provides a richer knowledge base for conservation mapping and planning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cheng Chen
- Department of Forest Resources Management, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Alys Granados
- Department of Forest Resources Management, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Felidae Conservation Fund, Mill Valley, California, USA
| | - Jedediah F Brodie
- Division of Biological Sciences and Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA
| | - Roland Kays
- North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
- Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
| | - T Jonathan Davies
- Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Department of Botany, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Runzhe Liu
- Department of Forest Resources Management, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Biology Department, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Jason T Fisher
- School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Jorge Ahumada
- Moore Center for Science, Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USA
| | - William McShea
- Conservation Ecology Center, Smithsonian's National Zoo & Conservation Biology Institute, Front Royal, Virginia, USA
| | - Douglas Sheil
- Forest Ecology and Forest Management Group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands
- Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Akershus, Norway
- Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia
| | - Jayasilan Mohd-Azlan
- Institute of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kota Samarahan, Malaysia
| | | | | | - Robyn D Appleton
- Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Spectacled Bear Conservation Society Peru, Lambayeque, Peru
| | - Robert Bitariho
- Institute of Tropical Forest Conservation, Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Mbarara, Uganda
| | - Santiago Espinosa
- Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, México
- Escuela de Ciencias Biológicas, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador
| | | | - Kristofer M Helgen
- Australian Museum Research Institute, Australian Museum, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Andy Hubbard
- National Park Service, Sonoran Desert Network, Tucson, Arizona, USA
| | - Cindy M Hurtado
- Department of Forest Resources Management, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Patrick A Jansen
- Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands
- Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Panamá, República de Panamá
| | - Xuelong Jiang
- State Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, China
| | - Alex Jones
- Campus Natural Reserves, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California, USA
| | | | | | - Xueyou Li
- State Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, China
| | | | - Erik Meyer
- Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, California, USA
| | - Anna B Miller
- Department of Environment and Society, Institute of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA
| | - Thomas Murphy
- Department of Anthropology, Edmonds College, Lynwood, Washington, USA
| | - Renzo Piana
- Spectacled Bear Conservation Society Peru, Lambayeque, Peru
| | - Rui-Chang Quan
- Center for Integrative Conservation, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Mengla, China
| | - Christopher T Rota
- Division of Forestry and Natural Resources, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
| | - Francesco Rovero
- Department of Biology, University of Florence, Trento, Italy
- MUSE - Museo delle Scienze, Trento, Italy
| | | | | | - Aisha Uduman
- Department of Forest Resources Management, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Joanna Klees van Bommel
- Department of Forest Resources Management, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Hilary Young
- Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USA
| | - A Cole Burton
- Department of Forest Resources Management, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Chaudhuri S, Rajaraman R, Kalyanasundaram S, Sathyakumar S, Krishnamurthy R. N-mixture model-based estimate of relative abundance of sloth bear ( Melursus ursinus) in response to biotic and abiotic factors in a human-dominated landscape of central India. PeerJ 2022; 10:e13649. [PMID: 36523470 PMCID: PMC9745790 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.13649] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2021] [Accepted: 06/07/2022] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Reliable estimation of abundance is a prerequisite for a species' conservation planning in human-dominated landscapes, especially if the species is elusive and involved in conflicts. As a means of population estimation, the importance of camera traps has been recognized globally, although estimating the abundance of unmarked, cryptic species has always been a challenge to conservation biologists. This study explores the use of the N-mixture model with three probability distributions, i.e., Poisson, negative binomial (NB) and zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP), to estimate the relative abundance of sloth bears (Melursus ursinus) based on a camera trapping exercise in Sanjay Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh from December 2016 to April 2017. We used environmental and anthropogenic covariates to model the variation in the abundance of sloth bears. We also compared null model estimates (mean site abundance) obtained from the N-mixture model to those of the Royle-Nichols abundance-induced heterogeneity model (RN model) to assess the application of similar site-structured models. Models with Poisson distributions produced ecologically realistic and more precise estimates of mean site abundance (λ = 2.60 ± 0.64) compared with other distributions, despite the relatively high Akaike Information Criterion value. Area of mixed and sal forest, the photographic capture rate of humans and distance to the nearest village predicted a higher relative abundance of sloth bears. Mean site abundance estimates of sloth bears obtained from the N-mixture model (Poisson distribution) and the RN model were comparable, indicating the overall utility of these models in this field. However, density estimates of sloth bears based on spatially explicit methods are essential for evaluating the efficacy of the relatively more cost-effective N-mixture model. Compared to commonly used index/encounter-based methods, the N-mixture model equipped with knowledge on governing biotic and abiotic factors provides better relative abundance estimates for a species like the sloth bear. In the absence of absolute abundance estimates, the present study could be insightful for the long-term conservation and management of sloth bears.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sankarshan Chaudhuri
- Department of Landscape Level Planning and Management, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
| | - Rajasekar Rajaraman
- Department of Landscape Level Planning and Management, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
| | | | - Sambandam Sathyakumar
- Department of Endangered Species Management, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
| | - Ramesh Krishnamurthy
- Department of Landscape Level Planning and Management, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
- Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| |
Collapse
|