Abstract

AbstractAbundance estimation is a vital goal in wildlife monitoring. Camera‐traps are a tool to survey wildlife populations noninvasively and can be used for abundance estimation if individuals are identifiable. However, for species without individual identification characteristics, camera‐trap surveys have often been combined with some other survey method such as capture‐recapture (CR, using traditional tags or DNA through hair snags or scat) to inform an integrated model. We discuss and apply two integrated models involving presence‐absence data from camera traps and CR data from hair traps to compare bias and precision to estimate the population density of grizzly bears of the central Rocky Mountains of Alberta, Canada. Unlike many other studies, we found that integrating presence‐absence data with CR data does not improve the precision of the density estimates. The possible reasons for such results are discussed in detail.

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

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.