Abstract

Wildlife managers and researchers need to understand the status of the wildlife populations they are trying to conserve. Though various methods have been developed to monitor wildlife in their natural habitats, the complexity and accessibility of most techniques often limit their usability. Such techniques often take significant resources and time to deliver results, and methodological noncompliance may lower the reliability of results. Given this need to study wildlife populations reliably, quickly and within financial and human resource constraints faced by wildlife managers, we assessed the reliability and effort required to carry the pooling local expert opinion (PLEO) method as articulated by Hoeven et al. (2004). We did this by comparing density estimates of several wildlife species derived by following the PLEO method with those estimated using a conventional method along with results from the literature on wildlife monitoring studies from Bornean rainforests. Our analysis shows that the PLEO methodology provides an effective and complementary tool to estimate wildlife densities in tropical rainforests. We suggest that by incorporating the PLEO methodology into regular monitoring activity, conservation NGOs can create a platform that allows for participatory wildlife monitoring and create the platform to involve local communities in biodiversity conservation.

Highlights

  • BioOne Complete is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses

  • Though the overall management of Gunung Niut Nature Reserve (GNNR) is under the responsibility of the Balai Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam (BKSDA) of West Kalimantan, indigenous communities living around GNNR are allowed to harvest non-timber forest products under Indonesian law

  • We followed the pooling local expert opinion (PLEO) methodology developed by Hoeven et al (2004) that uses market-forecasting techniques to determine wildlife densities

Read more

Summary

Introduction

BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Such techniques often take significant resources and time to deliver results, and methodological noncompliance may lower the reliability of results Given this need to study wildlife populations reliably, quickly and within financial and human resource constraints faced by wildlife managers, we assessed the reliability and effort required to carry the pooling local expert opinion (PLEO) method as articulated by Hoeven et al (2004). We did this by comparing density estimates of several wildlife species derived by following the PLEO method with those estimated using a conventional method along with results from the literature on wildlife monitoring studies from Bornean rainforests. As with any wildlife survey methodology, these methods require researchers to follow standard

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call