Abstract

Abstract Context Determining the most efficient detection method for a target species is key for successful wildlife monitoring and management. Driven transects and sign surveys are commonly used to monitor populations of the endangered numbat (Myrmecobius fasciatus). Camera trapping is being explored as a new method. These methods were unevaluated for efficacy and cost for numbat detection. Aims To compare efficacy and costing of driven transects, sign surveys and camera trapping for detecting numbats in the Upper Warren region, Western Australia. Methods Seven repeat sign surveys and driven transects, as well as 4 months of camera trapping, were conducted concurrently at 50 sites along three transects. Numbat detection rates and costing of the three techniques were compared, and detection probabilities were compared between sign surveys and camera trapping. Key results Numbat signs were detected during 88 surveys at 39 sites, exceeding camera trapping (26 detections at 13 sites) and driven transects (seven detections near five sites). The estimated probability for detecting a numbat or a sign thereof (at a site where numbats were present) ranged from 0.21 to 0.35 for a sign survey, and 0.02 to 0.06 for 7 days of camera trapping. Total survey costs were lowest for driven transects, followed by camera trapping and sign surveys. When expressed as cost per numbat detection, sign surveys were cheapest. Conclusions Comparative studies of survey methods are essential for optimal, cost-effective wildlife monitoring. Sign surveys were more successful and cost effective than camera trapping or driven transects for detecting numbats in the Upper Warren region. Together with occupancy modelling, sign surveys are appropriate to investigate changes in occupancy rates over time, which could serve as a metric for long-term numbat monitoring. Implications There is no ‘best’ method for wildlife surveys. Case-specific comparison of animal detection methods is recommended to ensure optimal methods. For the numbat population in the Upper Warren region, further studies are needed to improve numbat detection rates from camera trapping, and to test sign surveys in autumn (March to May), when surviving juvenile numbats have established their own territory and assumptions regarding population closure are less likely to be violated.

Highlights

  • Determining efficient detection methods for a target animal is key for successful monitoring and management

  • Comparative studies of survey methods are essential for optimal, cost-effective wildlife monitoring

  • Sign surveys are appropriate to investigate changes in occupancy rates over time, which could serve as a metric for long-term numbat monitoring

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Determining efficient detection methods for a target animal is key for successful monitoring and management. This is because management goals are commonly stated in terms of population size or distribution, such as increases for threatened species, reductions for pest species or stable numbers for harvested. Since European settlement, habitat loss, exotic predators and inappropriate fire regimes have contributed to the numbat’s decline (Friend and Page 2017) It occurs in only 1% of its former range, with an estimated ,1000 mature animals in ongoing decline (Woinarski et al 2014; Friend and Page 2017). The present study focuses on the UWR numbat population, where adequate monitoring information is lacking due to the absence of effective detection methods to assess population trends, size or distribution

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