Estimating population density from indirect sign: track counts and the Formozov–Malyshev–Pereleshin formula

By Philip A. Stephens, O. Zaumyslova, D. Miquelle, A. Myslenkov, G. Hayward. 2006

156 citations recorded by the source corpus.

For many purposes it is often desirable to estimate animal population densities over large areas. Where total counts are not possible and sightings are relatively rare, a range of methods exists to estimate densities from indirect sign. Such methods are frequently unreliable and usually require independent calibration or confirmation. We present an analytical method for estimating population density from track counts. The method, widely known in the Russian Federation but not in the English language scientific literature, requires counts of tracks of known age, together with estimates of animal daily travel distances. We use simulations to verify the theoretical basis of the approach and to indicate potential precision that may be achieved. We illustrate application of the approach using a large data set on ungulate track counts in the Russian Far East. We suggest that under most circumstances, nonparametric bootstrapping will be the most appropriate method for deriving estimates of confidence intervals about density estimates. As with other approaches to estimating density from indirect sign, the method that we discuss is vulnerable to violations of an array of underlying assumptions. However, it is easily applied and could represent an important method by which the relationship between indices of abundance and absolute density can be understood.

Subfields: Ecology, Genetics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0ff7b2304018b78a277940552f4f183bac3a33cb

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Genetics

Citations in the corpus

A picture is worth a thousand words: the application of camera trapping to the study of birds (2008, methodology): “They developed a generalized version of a model used by Stephens et al. (2006) for estimating density from track counts.”
Spatial viability analysis of Amur tiger Panthera tigris altaica in the Russian Far East: the role of protected areas and landscape matrix in population persistence (2006, methodology): “Encounter rates with tracks of the four major prey species (red deer, roe deer, Sika deer and wild boar; Miquelle et al . 1996) were converted to prey density by means of the Formozov equation ( Stephens et al . 2006 ) using mean daily travel distances as documented from the SABZ (Stephens et al . 2”
Differential Use of Trails by Forest Mammals and the Implications for Camera‐Trap Studies: A Case Study from Belize (2010, background): “…is rarely validated (e.g., Emmons 1987, Hart et al. 1996, Boddicker et al. 2002, Miller & Miller 2005, Azlan & Engkamat 2006, Lynam et al. 2006, Stephens et al. 2006, Weckel et al. 2006, Joseph et al. 2007, Kasper et al. 2007, Kauffman et al. 2007, Blaum et al. 2008, Datta et al. 2008, Dinata…”
Predicting potential habitat and population size for reintroduction of the Far Eastern leopards in the Russian Far East (2011, methodology): “Starting in 2000, counts of fresh ungulate tracks (624-h old) were also recorded along survey routes in the current range of leopards as an indicator of relative animal abundance (Stephens et al., 2006).”
Management by proxy?:the use of indices in applied ecology (2015, background): “For example, Stephens et al. (2006) analysed GPS data on movement of ungulates in the Russian Far East to identify factors that affect daily travel distances.”
A simple method for estimating the effective detection distance of camera traps (2017, methodology): “2016), just as in line-transect estimation from indirect sign using the Formozov-Malyshev-Pereleshin formula (Stephens et al. 2006).”
Spatial structure of Amur (Siberian) tigers (Panthera tigris altaica) on Sikhote-Alin Biosphere Zapovednik, Russia (2010, background): “In contrast, in the Russian Far East prey biomass and tiger densities are an order of magnitude lower (Smirnov and Miquelle 1999; Stephens et al. 2006; Sunquist et al. 1999), suggesting that spacing patterns may differ considerably.”