Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating and validating abundance monitoring methods in the absence of populations of known size: review and application to a passive tracking index

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rarely is it possible to obtain absolute numbers in free-ranging populations and although various direct and indirect methods are used to estimate abundance, few are validated against populations of known size. In this paper, we apply grounding, calibration and verification methods, used to validate mathematical models, to methods of estimating relative abundance. To illustrate how this might be done, we consider and evaluate the widely applied passive tracking index (PTI) methodology. Using published data, we examine the rationality of PTI methodology, how conceptually animal activity and abundance are related and how alternative methods are subject to similar biases or produce similar abundance estimates and trends. We then attune the method against populations representing a range of densities likely to be encountered in the field. Finally, we compare PTI trends against a prediction that adjacent populations of the same species will have similar abundance values and trends in activity. We show that while PTI abundance estimates are subject to environmental and behavioural stochasticity peculiar to each species, the PTI method and associated variance estimate showed high probability of detection, high precision of abundance values and, generally, low variability between surveys, and suggest that the PTI method applied using this procedure and for these species provides a sensitive and credible index of abundance. This same or similar validation approach can and should be applied to alternative relative abundance methods in order to demonstrate their credibility and justify their use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen LR (2005) The impact of wild dog predation and wild dog control on beef cattle production, PhD Thesis. In: Department of Zoology p. 296. The University of Queensland, St Lucia

  • Allen BL (2014) The short-term effects of a routine poisoning campaign on the movements and detectability of a social top-predator. Environ Sci Pollut Res 21:2178–2190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen L, Engeman R, Krupa H (1996) Evaluation of three relative abundance indices for assessing dingo populations. Wildl Res 23:197–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen BL, Engeman RM, Allen LR (2011) Wild dogma: an examination of recent “evidence” for dingo regulation of invasive mesopredator release in Australia. Curr Zool 57:568–583

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen BL, Fleming PJS, Allen LR, Engeman RM, Ballard G, Leung LKP (2013) As clear as mud: a critical review of evidence for the ecological roles of Australian dingoes. Biol Conserv 159:158–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson DR (2001) The need to get the basics right in wildlife field studies. Wildl Soc Bull 29:1294–1297

    Google Scholar 

  • Beier P, Cunningham SC (1996) Power of track counts to detect changes in cougar populations. Wildl Soc Bull 24:540–546

    Google Scholar 

  • Bider JR (1968) Animal activity in uncontrolled terrestrial communities as determined by a sand transect technique. Ecol Monogr 38:1–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaum N, Engeman RM, Wasiolka B, Rossmanith E (2008) Indexing small mammalian carnivores in the southern Kalahari, South Africa. Wildl Res 35:72–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carley K (1996) Validating computational models. In: Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University

  • Catling PC, Burt RJ (1995) Studies of the ground-dwelling mammals of eucalypt forests in south-eastern New South Wales: the effect of habitat variables on distribution and abundance. Wildl Res 22:271–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catling PC, Burt RJ, Kooyman R (1997) A comparison of techniques used in a survey of the ground-dwelling and arboreal mammals in forests in north-eastern New South Wales. Wildl Res 24:417–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caughley G (1977) Analysis of vertebrate populations. Wiley, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Caughley G, Sinclair ARE (1994) Wildlife ecology and management. Blackwell Sciences, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark ED, Spear LB, Mccracken ML, Marques FFC, Borchers DL, Buckland ST, Ainley DG (2003) Validating the use of generalized additive models and at-sea surveys to estimate size and temporal trends of seabird populations. J Appl Ecol 40:278–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis PD, Boldgiv B, Mattison PM, Boulanger JR (2009) Estimating deer abundance in suburban areas with infrared-triggered cameras. Hum-Wildl Confl 3:116–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards GP, de Preu ND, Shakeshaft BJ, Crealy IV (2000) An evaluation of two methods of assessing feral cat and dingo abundance in central Australia. Wildl Res 27:143–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards GP, de Preu N, Crealy IV, Shakeshaft BJ (2002) Habitat selection by feral cats and dingoes in a semi-arid woodland environment in central Australia. Aust Ecol 27:26–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eldridge SR, Berman DM, Walsh B (2000) Field evaluation of four 1080 baits for dingo control. Wildl Res 27:495–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eldridge SR, Shakeshaft BJ, Nano TJ (2002) The impact of wild dog control on cattle, native and introduced herbivores and introduced predators in central Australia, Final report to the Bureau of Rural Sciences. Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory, Alice Springs

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeman RM (2003) More on the need to get the basics right: population indices Wildl Soc Bull 286–287

  • Engeman R (2005) Indexing principles and a widely applicable paradigm for indexing animal populations. Wildl Res 32:202–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeman R, Allen L (2000) Overview of a passive tracking index for monitoring wild canids and associated species. Integr Pest Manag Rev 5:197–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeman RM, Witmer GW (2000) IPM strategies: indexing difficult to monitor populations of pest species In: Nineteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference, pp. 183–189. University of California, Davis, San Diego

  • Engeman RM, Pipas MJ, Gruver KS, Allen L (2000) Monitoring coyote population changes with a passive activity index. Wildl Res 27:553–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeman R, Massei G, Sage M, Gentle M (2013) Monitoring wild pig populations: a review of methods. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20:8077–8091

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Evangelista P, Engeman R, Tallents L (2009) Testing a passive tracking index for monitoring the endangered Ethiopian wolf. Integr Zool 4:172–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming PJS (1996) Ground-placed baits for the control of wild dogs: evaluation of a replacement-baiting strategy in north-eastern New South Wales. Wildl Res 23:729–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gompper ME (2002) Top carnivores in the suburbs? Ecological and conservation issues raised by colonization of northeastern North America by coyotes. Bioscience 52:185–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris S, Rayner JMV (1986) Models for predicting urban fox (Vulpes vulpes) numbers in British cities and their application for rabies control. J Anim Ecol 55:593–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henke SE, Knowlton FF (1995) Techniques for estimating coyote abundance. In: Rollins D, Richardson C, Blackenship T, Canon K, Henke S (eds) Proceedings of a symposium on coyotes in the south-west: a compendium of our knowledge, pp. 71–78. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, San Angelo

  • Janová J (2012) Crop planning optimization model: the validation and verification processes. CEJOR 20:451–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleijnen JPC (1995) Verification and validation of simulation models. Eur J Oper Res 82:145–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knepell PL, Arangno DC (1993) Simulation validation: a confidence assessment methodology. Computer Society, Los Alamitos

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs CJ (2008) Ecology: the experimental analysis of distribution and abundance. Benjamin-Cummings, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancia RA, Nichols JD, Pollock KH (1994) In: Bookhout TA (ed) Research and management techniques for wildlife and habitats. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, pp 215–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Law AM, Kelton WD (2000) Simulation modeling and analysis. McGraw-Hill

  • Letnic M, Crowther M, Koch F (2009) Does a top-predator provide an endangered rodent with refuge from a mesopredator? Anim Conserv 12:302–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macal CM (2005) Model verification and validation. In: Threat anticipation: social science methods and models. The University of Chicago and Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago, IL

  • Macdonald DW, Rushton S (2003) Modelling space use and dispersal of mammals in real landscapes: a tool for conservation. J Biogeogr 30:607–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahon PS, Banks PB, Dickman CR (1998) Population indices for wild carnivores: a critical study in sand-dune habitat, south-western Queensland. Wildl Res 25:11–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason S (1995) Activity index as a means of evaluating macropod abundance. Department of Zoology, University of Queensland, St Lucia

    Google Scholar 

  • McCallum H (2000) Population parameters: estimation for ecological models. Blackwell Science, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller T, Muller H (2003) Modelling in natural sciences: design, validation and case studies. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Newsome AE, Corbett LK (1975) VI outbreaks of rodents in semi-arid and arid Australia: causes, preventions, and evolutionary considerations. In: Prakash I, Gosh PK (eds) Rodents in desert environments. Dr. W. Junk, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock KH (1995) The challenges of measuring change in wildlife populations: a biometrician’s perspective. In: Grigg GC, Hale PT, Lunney D (eds) Conservation through the sustainable use of wildlife, pp. 117–121. Centre for Conservation Biology, The University of Queensland

  • Roughton RD, Sweeny MW (1982) Refinements in scent station methodology for assessing trends in carnivore populations. J Wildl Manag 46:217–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sequin ES, Jaeger MM, Brussard PF, Barrett RH (2003) Wariness of coyotes to camera traps relative to social status and territory boundaries. Can J Zool 81:2015–2025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson JA, Fleming PJS (1994) Evaluation of the efficacy of 1080 poisoning of red foxes using visitation to non-toxic baits as an index of fox abundance. Wildl Res 21:27–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson PC (1992) The behavioural ecology of dingoes in north-western Australia: II. Activity patterns, breeding season and pup rearing. Wildl Res 19:519–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts CHS, Aslin HJ (1981) The rodents of Australia. Angus and Robertson, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • Witmer GW (2005) Wildlife population monitoring: some practical considerations. Wildl Res 32:259–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Robert Wicks Pest Animal Research Centre, Biosecurity Queensland, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, PO Box 102, Toowoomba, Queensland, 4350, Australia

    Lee R. Allen

  2. National Wildlife Research Centre, US Department of Agriculture, LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO, 80521-2154, USA

    Richard M. Engeman

Authors
  1. Lee R. Allen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard M. Engeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lee R. Allen.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Michael Matthies

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Allen, L.R., Engeman, R.M. Evaluating and validating abundance monitoring methods in the absence of populations of known size: review and application to a passive tracking index. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22, 2907–2915 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3567-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3567-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation