Ocelot Leopardus pardalis in Belize: the impact of trap spacing and distance moved on density estimates

By Adam Dillon, M. Kelly. Oryx, 2007

190 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7219560c08c706a071232736fa73a40edf16e94e

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

Design, evaluate, refine: camera trap studies for elusive species (2008, methodology): “But perhaps more to the point, camera spacing has never been seriously implicated as a factor impacting species inventories as it has for species abundance and especially density estimation (Dillon & Kelly, 2007).”
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,…”
To bait or not to bait: A comparison of camera-trapping methods for estimating leopard Panthera pardus density (2014, background): “Camera-traps were deployed at P2 per the equivalent area of a female leopard home range, aiming for a sufficiently high density to ensure that no home range would be unpopulated by traps, and that every individual has a chance of capture (Dillon and Kelly, 2007; Karanth et al., 2011a), but also low ”
Evaluating capture–recapture population and density estimation of tigers in a population with known parameters (2010, background): “Few studies have actually evaluated the appropriateness of mark–recapture models in field situations for obtaining unbiased estimates of population size and density of carnivores (Wegge, Pokheral & Jnawali, 2004; Soisalo & Cavalcanti, 2006; Dillon & Kelly, 2007; Maffei & Noss, 2008).”
Density and activity patterns of ocelots (Leopardus pardalis) in northern Peru and the impact of oil exploration activities (2010, methodology): “The duration and sampling effort of both our control period (44 days, 983 camera-nights) and disturbance period (96 days, 2085 camera-nights) are typical for similar camera-trapping studies, which report survey durations ranging from roughly 1–3 months with numerous surveys of less than 45 days (e.g”
Estimating Puma Densities from Camera Trapping across Three Study Sites: Bolivia, Argentina, and Belize (2008, background): “…by guest on 30 O ctober 2018 2003; Maffei et al. 2004; Silver et al. 2004; Wallace et al. 2003), ocelots (Leopardus pardalis—Di Bitetti et al. 2006; Dillon and Kelly 2007; Maffei et al. 2005; Trolle and Kery 2003), and Geoffroy’s cats (Leopardus geoffroyi—Cuéllar et al. 2006).”
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, methodology): “We evaluated models using Akaike’s Information Criterion with a small sample size bias correction (AICc) and considered all models with DAICc \2 equally parsimonious; we model-averaged estimates among all models to incorporate uncertainty (Burnham and Anderson 2002).”
A critique of density estimation from camera-trap data† (2012, background): “by Foster (2008) to assess the robustness of theMh jackknife estimator to trap failure showed that trap failure could result in underestimation or overestimation of the abundance.”
Ocelot home range, overlap and density: comparing radio telemetry with camera trapping (2008, methodology): “Our maximum survey area was 227.10 km2 across all five camera surveys conducted in this region (Dillon & Kelly, 2007).”