Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorKühl, Hjalmar S.
dc.contributor.authorBuckland, Stephen T.
dc.contributor.authorHenrich, Maik
dc.contributor.authorHowe, Eric
dc.contributor.authorHeurich, Marco Dietmar
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-12T13:14:50Z
dc.date.available2024-03-12T13:14:50Z
dc.date.created2023-11-06T13:30:04Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.citationEcology and Evolution. 2023, 13 (10), .en_US
dc.identifier.issn2045-7758
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3121986
dc.description.abstractAmong other approaches, camera trap distance sampling (CTDS) is used to estimate animal abundance from unmarked populations. It was formulated for videos and observation distances are measured at predetermined ‘snapshot moments’. Surveys recording still images with passive infrared motion sensors suffer from frequent periods where animals are not photographed, either because of technical delays before the camera can be triggered again (i.e. ‘camera recovery time’) or because they remain stationary and do not immediately retrigger the camera following camera recovery time (i.e. ‘retrigger delays’). These effects need to be considered when calculating temporal survey effort to avoid downwardly biased abundance estimates. Here, we extend the CTDS model for passive infrared motion sensor recording of single images or short photo series. We propose estimating ‘mean time intervals between triggers’ as combined mean camera recovery time and mean retrigger delays from the time interval distribution of pairs of consecutive pictures, using a Gamma and Exponential function, respectively. We apply the approach to survey data on red deer, roe deer and wild boar. Mean time intervals between triggers were very similar when estimated empirically and when derived from the model-based approach. Depending on truncation times (i.e. the time interval between consecutive pictures beyond which data are discarded) and species, we estimated mean time intervals between retriggers between 8.28 and 15.05 s. Using a predefined snapshot interval, not accounting for these intervals, would lead to underestimated density by up to 96% due to overestimated temporal survey effort. The proposed approach is applicable to any taxa surveyed with camera traps. As programming of cameras to record still images is often preferred over video recording due to reduced consumption of energy and memory, we expect this approach to find broad application, also for other camera trap methods than CTDS.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.subjectanimal abundanceen_US
dc.subjectcamera recovery timeen_US
dc.subjectcamera trap distance samplingen_US
dc.subjectretrigger delayen_US
dc.subjectstill imagesen_US
dc.subjectvideoen_US
dc.titleEstimating effective survey duration in camera trap distance sampling surveysen_US
dc.title.alternativeEstimating effective survey duration in camera trap distance sampling surveysen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holder© 2023 The Authors.en_US
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Matematikk og Naturvitenskap: 400::Informasjons- og kommunikasjonsvitenskap: 420::Simulering, visualisering, signalbehandling, bildeanalyse: 429en_US
dc.source.pagenumber14en_US
dc.source.volume13en_US
dc.source.journalEcology and Evolutionen_US
dc.source.issue10en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/ece3.10599
dc.identifier.cristin2192664
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal