Abstract

BackgroundConservationists frequently use nest count surveys to estimate great ape population densities, yet the accuracy and precision of the resulting estimates are difficult to assess.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe used mathematical simulations to model nest building behavior in an orangutan population to compare the quality of the population size estimates produced by two of the commonly used nest count methods, the ‘marked recount method’ and the ‘matrix method.’ We found that when observers missed even small proportions of nests in the first survey, the marked recount method produced large overestimates of the population size. Regardless of observer reliability, the matrix method produced substantial overestimates of the population size when surveying effort was low. With high observer reliability, both methods required surveying approximately 0.26% of the study area (0.26 km2 out of 100 km2 in this simulation) to achieve an accurate estimate of population size; at or above this sampling effort both methods produced estimates within 33% of the true population size 50% of the time. Both methods showed diminishing returns at survey efforts above 0.26% of the study area. The use of published nest decay estimates derived from other sites resulted in widely varying population size estimates that spanned nearly an entire order of magnitude. The marked recount method proved much better at detecting population declines, detecting 5% declines nearly 80% of the time even in the first year of decline.Conclusions/SignificanceThese results highlight the fact that neither nest surveying method produces highly reliable population size estimates with any reasonable surveying effort, though either method could be used to obtain a gross population size estimate in an area. Conservation managers should determine if the quality of these estimates are worth the money and effort required to produce them, and should generally limit surveying effort to 0.26% of the study area, unless specific management goals require more intensive sampling. Using site- and time- specific nest decay rates (or the marked recount method) are essential for accurate population size estimation. Marked recount survey methods with sufficient sampling effort hold promise for detecting population declines.

Highlights

  • Nest counts have been used extensively to estimate great ape population densities [1,2,3]

  • Population estimates with incomplete visibility The clearest effect under conditions of incomplete visibility was that the marked recount method greatly overestimated population size when only a few surveys were conducted (Fig. 1)

  • Because the standing crop of nests at the first survey was large compared to the number of nests created between surveys, missing about 10–15% of the standing nests at the first survey but finding many of them on subsequent surveys resulted in overestimation of the population size by about 50–75% when only two surveys were conducted

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Nest counts have been used extensively to estimate great ape population densities [1,2,3]. Nest decay times vary substantially over time and among sites and can introduce substantial errors in estimates of orangutan population density [12,13]. The two methods that are commonly used to estimate orangutan population density address the problem of assessing nest decay time in different ways. Conservationists frequently use nest count surveys to estimate great ape population densities, yet the accuracy and precision of the resulting estimates are difficult to assess

Methods
Results
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