Assumptions about fence permeability influence density estimates for brown hyaenas across South Africa

Abstract Wildlife population density estimates provide information on the number of individuals in an area and influence conservation management decisions. Thus, accuracy is vital. A dominant feature in many landscapes globally is fencing, yet the implications of fence permeability on density estima...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Kathryn S. Williams, Samual T. Williams, Rebecca J. Welch, Courtney J. Marneweck, Gareth K. H. Mann, Ross T. Pitman, Gareth Whittington-Jones, Guy A. Balme, Daniel M. Parker, Russell A. Hill
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Nature Portfolio 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/a474d1e621a34b0cbe45d44887eb53e5
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:a474d1e621a34b0cbe45d44887eb53e5
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:a474d1e621a34b0cbe45d44887eb53e52021-12-02T14:01:34ZAssumptions about fence permeability influence density estimates for brown hyaenas across South Africa10.1038/s41598-020-77188-72045-2322https://doaj.org/article/a474d1e621a34b0cbe45d44887eb53e52021-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-77188-7https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322Abstract Wildlife population density estimates provide information on the number of individuals in an area and influence conservation management decisions. Thus, accuracy is vital. A dominant feature in many landscapes globally is fencing, yet the implications of fence permeability on density estimation using spatial capture-recapture modelling are seldom considered. We used camera trap data from 15 fenced reserves across South Africa to examine the density of brown hyaenas (Parahyaena brunnea). We estimated density and modelled its relationship with a suite of covariates when fenced reserve boundaries were assumed to be permeable or impermeable to hyaena movements. The best performing models were those that included only the influence of study site on both hyaena density and detection probability, regardless of assumptions of fence permeability. When fences were considered impermeable, densities ranged from 2.55 to 15.06 animals per 100 km2, but when fences were considered permeable, density estimates were on average 9.52 times lower (from 0.17 to 1.59 animals per 100 km2). Fence permeability should therefore be an essential consideration when estimating density, especially since density results can considerably influence wildlife management decisions. In the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, future studies in fenced areas should assume some degree of permeability in order to avoid overestimating population density.Kathryn S. WilliamsSamual T. WilliamsRebecca J. WelchCourtney J. MarneweckGareth K. H. MannRoss T. PitmanGareth Whittington-JonesGuy A. BalmeDaniel M. ParkerRussell A. HillNature PortfolioarticleMedicineRScienceQENScientific Reports, Vol 11, Iss 1, Pp 1-11 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Kathryn S. Williams Samual T. Williams Rebecca J. Welch Courtney J. Marneweck Gareth K. H. Mann Ross T. Pitman Gareth Whittington-Jones Guy A. Balme Daniel M. Parker Russell A. Hill Assumptions about fence permeability influence density estimates for brown hyaenas across South Africa
description	Abstract Wildlife population density estimates provide information on the number of individuals in an area and influence conservation management decisions. Thus, accuracy is vital. A dominant feature in many landscapes globally is fencing, yet the implications of fence permeability on density estimation using spatial capture-recapture modelling are seldom considered. We used camera trap data from 15 fenced reserves across South Africa to examine the density of brown hyaenas (Parahyaena brunnea). We estimated density and modelled its relationship with a suite of covariates when fenced reserve boundaries were assumed to be permeable or impermeable to hyaena movements. The best performing models were those that included only the influence of study site on both hyaena density and detection probability, regardless of assumptions of fence permeability. When fences were considered impermeable, densities ranged from 2.55 to 15.06 animals per 100 km2, but when fences were considered permeable, density estimates were on average 9.52 times lower (from 0.17 to 1.59 animals per 100 km2). Fence permeability should therefore be an essential consideration when estimating density, especially since density results can considerably influence wildlife management decisions. In the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, future studies in fenced areas should assume some degree of permeability in order to avoid overestimating population density.
format	article
author	Kathryn S. Williams Samual T. Williams Rebecca J. Welch Courtney J. Marneweck Gareth K. H. Mann Ross T. Pitman Gareth Whittington-Jones Guy A. Balme Daniel M. Parker Russell A. Hill
author_facet	Kathryn S. Williams Samual T. Williams Rebecca J. Welch Courtney J. Marneweck Gareth K. H. Mann Ross T. Pitman Gareth Whittington-Jones Guy A. Balme Daniel M. Parker Russell A. Hill
author_sort	Kathryn S. Williams
title	Assumptions about fence permeability influence density estimates for brown hyaenas across South Africa
title_short	Assumptions about fence permeability influence density estimates for brown hyaenas across South Africa
title_full	Assumptions about fence permeability influence density estimates for brown hyaenas across South Africa
title_fullStr	Assumptions about fence permeability influence density estimates for brown hyaenas across South Africa
title_full_unstemmed	Assumptions about fence permeability influence density estimates for brown hyaenas across South Africa
title_sort	assumptions about fence permeability influence density estimates for brown hyaenas across south africa
publisher	Nature Portfolio
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/a474d1e621a34b0cbe45d44887eb53e5
work_keys_str_mv	AT kathrynswilliams assumptionsaboutfencepermeabilityinfluencedensityestimatesforbrownhyaenasacrosssouthafrica AT samualtwilliams assumptionsaboutfencepermeabilityinfluencedensityestimatesforbrownhyaenasacrosssouthafrica AT rebeccajwelch assumptionsaboutfencepermeabilityinfluencedensityestimatesforbrownhyaenasacrosssouthafrica AT courtneyjmarneweck assumptionsaboutfencepermeabilityinfluencedensityestimatesforbrownhyaenasacrosssouthafrica AT garethkhmann assumptionsaboutfencepermeabilityinfluencedensityestimatesforbrownhyaenasacrosssouthafrica AT rosstpitman assumptionsaboutfencepermeabilityinfluencedensityestimatesforbrownhyaenasacrosssouthafrica AT garethwhittingtonjones assumptionsaboutfencepermeabilityinfluencedensityestimatesforbrownhyaenasacrosssouthafrica AT guyabalme assumptionsaboutfencepermeabilityinfluencedensityestimatesforbrownhyaenasacrosssouthafrica AT danielmparker assumptionsaboutfencepermeabilityinfluencedensityestimatesforbrownhyaenasacrosssouthafrica AT russellahill assumptionsaboutfencepermeabilityinfluencedensityestimatesforbrownhyaenasacrosssouthafrica
_version_	1718392160190988288

Assumptions about fence permeability influence density estimates for brown hyaenas across South Africa

Ejemplares similares