How reliable are dung counts for estimating elephant numbers

By R. Barnes. 2001

162 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7fb9a5cb5bd7aead6c5711a0e73e809429f59df9

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecological Modeling

1. J. Cromsigt
2. S. Blake
3. K. Veblen
4. W. Stock
5. H. Olff
6. Herbert H. T. Prins

In Ecology

1. M. Robbins
2. I. Douglas-Hamilton
3. W. Bond
4. J. Cromsigt
5. S. Blake
6. K. Veblen
7. W. Stock
8. H. Olff

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. J. Cromsigt
2. Herbert H. T. Prins
3. I. Douglas-Hamilton
4. W. Bond
5. S. Blake
6. K. Veblen
7. W. Stock
8. H. Olff

Citations in the corpus

• Ecological Engineering by a Mega-Grazer: White Rhino Impacts on a South African Savanna (2008, background): “We consider dung counts a reliable relative measure of habitat use by grazers because none dung in territorial middens (Barnes 2001).”
• African elephant status report 2007 : an update from the African elephant database (2002, background): “If properly conducted, dungcounting techniques can provide estimates that are at least as accurate as those from direct methods, and more precise than those of aerial sample counts (Barnes, 2001, 2002).”
• Savanna glade hotspots: Plant community development and synergy with large herbivores (2012, methodology): “When used to estimate relative habitat use, dung counts are at least as reliable as aerial or ground counts (see review by Barnes, 2001 and references contained in Young et al., 2005).”
• Counting elusive animals: Comparing field and genetic census of the entire mountain gorilla population of Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda (2009, background): “…are often associated with very large confidence intervals that translate into high percentages of the total count (e.g., average of 36% for 13 examples of elephant dung counts (Barnes, 2001), 20–30% for nest-based orangutan and chimpanzee surveys (Johnson et al., 2005; Plumptre and Cox, 2006)).”
• Habitat heterogeneity as a driver of ungulate diversity and distribution patterns: interaction of body mass and digestive strategy (2009, background): “We believe it is preferable above observational counts with its potential large biases, especially for the smaller size classes and in low-visibility habitats (Caro, 1999; Barnes, 2001).”
• The ecology of forest elephant distribution and its implications for conservation (2002, methodology): “Data should be collected on human activity, elephant abundance, and habitat quality, following established methods (Barnes et al. 1997b; Walsh and White 1999; Walsh et al. 2000, 2001; White and Edwards 2000b; Barnes 2001) Chapter 5).”