Ocelot home range, overlap and density: comparing radio telemetry with camera trapping

By Adam Dillon, M. Kelly. 2008

167 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Small Animals

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/547f3b267966d9bac7e5d4e11f979ea0e7bde85a

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

1. M. Kelly
2. J. Kolowski
3. Alfonso Alonso
4. A. Noss
5. L. Maffei
6. Mathias Tobler
7. G. Powell
8. S. Karpanty

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. M. Kelly
2. J. Kolowski
3. Alfonso Alonso
4. A. Noss
5. Beth Gardner
6. A. F. O'connell
7. L. Maffei
8. Mathias Tobler

In Small Animals

1. G. Powell
2. Mathias Tobler
3. J. Kolowski
4. Alfonso Alonso
5. G. Zapata-Ríos
6. L. Branch

Citations in the corpus

• Carnivore co‐existence and habitat use in the Mountain Pine Ridge Forest Reserve, Belize (2011, unknown): “This adjacent area supports similar densities of jaguars (2.4–8.8 individuals 100 km 2), but higher densities of ocelots (12.8–25.8 individuals 100 km 2) than those found in the MPR (Silver et al., 2004; Dillon & Kelly, 2007; Dillon & Kelly, 2008).”
• Comparison of noninvasive genetic and camera-trapping techniques for surveying snow leopards (2011, background): “Much debate surrounds how this metric, a surrogate for movement distances, should be derived (Balme et al. 2009; Dillon and Kelly 2008; Soisalo and Cavalcanti 2006; Wilson and Anderson 1985).”
• Density and activity patterns of ocelots (Leopardus pardalis) in northern Peru and the impact of oil exploration activities (2010, background): “…large relative to the target animal’s home range size (Maffei and Noss, 2008), other research suggests that at least under some conditions, density estimates are more accurate using a buffer size equal to the full MMDM (Dillon and Kelly, 2008; Parmenter et al., 2003; Soisalo and Cavalcanti, 2006).”
• Evaluating capture–recapture population and density estimation of tigers in a population with known parameters (2010, result): “Soisalo & Cavalcanti (2006) obtained similar results for Jaguars Panthera onca and Dillon & Kelly (2008) for ocelots Leopardus pardalis.”
• Evaluating the potential biases in carnivore capture–recapture studies associated with the use of lure and varying density estimation techniques using photographic-sampling data of the Malagasy civet (2011, background): “The MMDM buffer has been supported by several studies (Parmenter et al. 2003; Soisalo and Cavalcanti 2006; Trolle et al. 2007; Dillon and Kelly 2008); however, there is no theoretical framework for why this value should provide consistent and reliable density estimates.”
• Estimating jaguar densities with camera traps: Problems with current designs and recommendations for future studies (2013, result): “This has been realized when researchers compared the MMDM obtained from camera traps to the MMDM from telemetry data, and lead to the suggestion that the full MMDM might be a more representative buffer than ½ MMDM (Dillon and Kelly, 2008; Sharma et al., 2010; Soisalo and Cavalcanti, 2006).”
• Density and habitat use of the leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis) in three commercial forest reserves in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo (2013, background): “Most density estimates for smaller cats, if they are available at all, are drawn from radiotelemetry studies based on a limited number of individuals (e.g., Dillon and Kelly 2008; Dunstone et al. 2002; Rajaratnam 2000; Sliwa 2004).”
• Comparison of density estimation methods for mammal populations with camera traps in the Kaa‐Iya del Gran Chaco landscape (2012, background): “…et al., 2008; Paviolo et al., 2009), ocelot Leopardus pardalis (Trolle & Kéry, 2003; Maffei et al., 2005; di Bitetti, Paviolo & de Angelo, 2006; Dillon & Kelly, 2007, 2008; Maffei & Noss, 2008), Pampas cat Leopardus colocolo (Gardner et al., 2010), Andean cat Leopardus jacobita (Reppucci,…”