The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals

By Chris Carbone, S. Christie, K. Conforti, T. Coulson, N. Franklin, J. Ginsberg, M. Griffiths, J. Holden, K. Kawanishi, M. Kinnaird and 12 more. Animal Conservation, 2001

565 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The monitoring and management of species depends on reliable population estimates, and this can be both difficult and very costly for cryptic large vertebrates that live in forested habitats. Recently developed camera trapping techniques have already been shown to be an effective means of making mark‐recapture estimates of individually identifiable animals (e.g. tigers). Camera traps also provide a new method for surveying animal abundance. Through computer simulations, and an analysis of the rates of camera trap capture from 19 studies of tigers across the species' range, we show that the number of camera days/tiger photograph correlates with independent estimates of tiger density. This statistic does not rely on individual identity and is particularly useful for estimating the population density of species that are not individually identifiable. Finally, we used the comparison between observed trapping rates and the computer simulations to estimate the minimum effort required to determine that tigers, or other species, do not exist in an area, a measure that is critical for conservation planning.

Subfields: Ecology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/294d84597be0bedbda7e02e2f6f1a1761028b306

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 Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

A critique of density estimation from camera-trap data† (2012, methodology): “A few studies have defined the study area as the area bounded by a minimum convex polygon of the traps or the boundary of a park or reserve (e.g., tigers, Carbone et al. 2001; jaguars, Cullen et al. 2005; bobcat, Heilbrun et al. 2006).”
Camera trapping photographic rate as an index of density in forest ungulates (2009, background): “…based on indices and, particularly, the use of camera trapping rates as an index of abundance, have been widely debated (Carbone et al. 2002; Jennelle et al. 2002; Williams et al. 2002; Karanth et al. 2003; O’Brien, in press), and they mainly relate to the need for calibrating the index…”
Estimating Snow Leopard Population Abundance Using Photography and Capture–Recapture Techniques (2006, background): “…yield the minimum number of snow leopards present and trapping effort (expressed as the number of animal photographs per trap night) can be viewed as an index of relative abundance provided capture probabilities remain constant between sites and years (Carbone et al. 2001, Jennelle et al. 2002).”
The Wildlife Picture Index: monitoring top trophic levels (2010, background): “As discussed by Dobson (2005) and Mace & Baillie (2007), currently available datasets are not the ideal datasets for monitoring changes in the rate of loss of biodiversity.”
Effects of trapping effort and trap shyness on estimates of tiger abundance from camera trap studies (2004, background): “The same precautions should be taken, even if the objective of the monitoring program is simply to acquire an index of density based on total capture rates (Carbone et al., 2001).”
Assessing the size, growth rate and structure of a seasonal population of whale sharks (Rhincodon typus Smith 1828) using conventional tagging and photo identification (2007, unknown): “Photo identiﬁcation was considered the most reliable means of estimating the whale shark population at Gladden Spit although the individuals catalogued through photo-based programmes may only represent a fraction of the total population (Carbone et al., 2001).”
An evaluation of camera traps for inventorying large‐ and medium‐sized terrestrial rainforest mammals (2008, background): “While capture frequencies can give an idea of the relative abundance of different species, there is an ongoing discussion among scientists about the reliability of this index (Carbone et al., 2001, 2002; Jennelle, Runge & MacKenzie, 2002).”
Comparing methods for sampling large- and medium-sized mammals: camera traps and track plots (2008, methodology): “…patterns, and sometimes, the estimation of population density (through individualized records) (Voss and Emmons 1996; Srbek-Araújo and Chiarello 2005); it is an efficient method especially to record vagile animals which are solitary, in low density or live in small groups (Carbone et al. 2001).”