Methods for wildlife monitoring in tropical forests: Comparing human observations, camera traps, and passive acoustic sensors

Abstract Wildlife monitoring is essential for conservation science and data‐driven decision‐making. Tropical forests pose a particularly challenging environment for monitoring wildlife due to the dense vegetation, and diverse and cryptic species with relatively low abundances. The most commonly used...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Joeri A. Zwerts, P. J. Stephenson, Fiona Maisels, Marcus Rowcliffe, Christos Astaras, Patrick A. Jansen, Jaap van derWaarde, Liesbeth E. H. M. Sterck, Pita A. Verweij, Tom Bruce, Stephanie Brittain, Marijke vanKuijk
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Wiley 2021
Materias:	automated classification camera trapping evidence‐based conservation passive acoustic monitoring wildlife conservation wildlife monitoring methods Ecology QH540-549.5 General. Including nature conservation, geographical distribution QH1-199.5
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/c4d1c90ff1244c509d282f12506d2eca
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:c4d1c90ff1244c509d282f12506d2eca
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:c4d1c90ff1244c509d282f12506d2eca2021-12-01T10:20:56ZMethods for wildlife monitoring in tropical forests: Comparing human observations, camera traps, and passive acoustic sensors2578-485410.1111/csp2.568https://doaj.org/article/c4d1c90ff1244c509d282f12506d2eca2021-12-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.568https://doaj.org/toc/2578-4854Abstract Wildlife monitoring is essential for conservation science and data‐driven decision‐making. Tropical forests pose a particularly challenging environment for monitoring wildlife due to the dense vegetation, and diverse and cryptic species with relatively low abundances. The most commonly used monitoring methods in tropical forests are observations made by humans (visual or acoustic), camera traps, or passive acoustic sensors. These methods come with trade‐offs in terms of species coverage, accuracy and precision of population metrics, available technical expertise, and costs. Yet, there are no reviews that compare the characteristics of these methods in detail. Here, we comprehensively review the advantages and limitations of the three mentioned methods, by asking four key questions that are always important in relation to wildlife monitoring: (1) What are the target species?; (2) Which population metrics are desirable and attainable?; (3) What expertise, tools, and effort are required for species identification?; and (4) Which financial and human resources are required for data collection and processing? Given the diversity of monitoring objectives and circumstances, we do not aim to conclusively prescribe particular methods for all situations. Neither do we claim that any one method is superior to others. Rather, our review aims to support scientists and conservation practitioners in understanding the options and criteria that must be considered in choosing the appropriate method, given the objectives of their wildlife monitoring efforts and resources available. We focus on tropical forests because of their high conservation priority, although the information put forward is also relevant for other biomes.Joeri A. ZwertsP. J. StephensonFiona MaiselsMarcus RowcliffeChristos AstarasPatrick A. JansenJaap van derWaardeLiesbeth E. H. M. SterckPita A. VerweijTom BruceStephanie BrittainMarijke vanKuijkWileyarticleautomated classificationcamera trappingevidence‐based conservationpassive acoustic monitoringwildlife conservationwildlife monitoring methodsEcologyQH540-549.5General. Including nature conservation, geographical distributionQH1-199.5ENConservation Science and Practice, Vol 3, Iss 12, Pp n/a-n/a (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	automated classification camera trapping evidence‐based conservation passive acoustic monitoring wildlife conservation wildlife monitoring methods Ecology QH540-549.5 General. Including nature conservation, geographical distribution QH1-199.5
spellingShingle	automated classification camera trapping evidence‐based conservation passive acoustic monitoring wildlife conservation wildlife monitoring methods Ecology QH540-549.5 General. Including nature conservation, geographical distribution QH1-199.5 Joeri A. Zwerts P. J. Stephenson Fiona Maisels Marcus Rowcliffe Christos Astaras Patrick A. Jansen Jaap van derWaarde Liesbeth E. H. M. Sterck Pita A. Verweij Tom Bruce Stephanie Brittain Marijke vanKuijk Methods for wildlife monitoring in tropical forests: Comparing human observations, camera traps, and passive acoustic sensors
description	Abstract Wildlife monitoring is essential for conservation science and data‐driven decision‐making. Tropical forests pose a particularly challenging environment for monitoring wildlife due to the dense vegetation, and diverse and cryptic species with relatively low abundances. The most commonly used monitoring methods in tropical forests are observations made by humans (visual or acoustic), camera traps, or passive acoustic sensors. These methods come with trade‐offs in terms of species coverage, accuracy and precision of population metrics, available technical expertise, and costs. Yet, there are no reviews that compare the characteristics of these methods in detail. Here, we comprehensively review the advantages and limitations of the three mentioned methods, by asking four key questions that are always important in relation to wildlife monitoring: (1) What are the target species?; (2) Which population metrics are desirable and attainable?; (3) What expertise, tools, and effort are required for species identification?; and (4) Which financial and human resources are required for data collection and processing? Given the diversity of monitoring objectives and circumstances, we do not aim to conclusively prescribe particular methods for all situations. Neither do we claim that any one method is superior to others. Rather, our review aims to support scientists and conservation practitioners in understanding the options and criteria that must be considered in choosing the appropriate method, given the objectives of their wildlife monitoring efforts and resources available. We focus on tropical forests because of their high conservation priority, although the information put forward is also relevant for other biomes.
format	article
author	Joeri A. Zwerts P. J. Stephenson Fiona Maisels Marcus Rowcliffe Christos Astaras Patrick A. Jansen Jaap van derWaarde Liesbeth E. H. M. Sterck Pita A. Verweij Tom Bruce Stephanie Brittain Marijke vanKuijk
author_facet	Joeri A. Zwerts P. J. Stephenson Fiona Maisels Marcus Rowcliffe Christos Astaras Patrick A. Jansen Jaap van derWaarde Liesbeth E. H. M. Sterck Pita A. Verweij Tom Bruce Stephanie Brittain Marijke vanKuijk
author_sort	Joeri A. Zwerts
title	Methods for wildlife monitoring in tropical forests: Comparing human observations, camera traps, and passive acoustic sensors
title_short	Methods for wildlife monitoring in tropical forests: Comparing human observations, camera traps, and passive acoustic sensors
title_full	Methods for wildlife monitoring in tropical forests: Comparing human observations, camera traps, and passive acoustic sensors
title_fullStr	Methods for wildlife monitoring in tropical forests: Comparing human observations, camera traps, and passive acoustic sensors
title_full_unstemmed	Methods for wildlife monitoring in tropical forests: Comparing human observations, camera traps, and passive acoustic sensors
title_sort	methods for wildlife monitoring in tropical forests: comparing human observations, camera traps, and passive acoustic sensors
publisher	Wiley
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/c4d1c90ff1244c509d282f12506d2eca
work_keys_str_mv	AT joeriazwerts methodsforwildlifemonitoringintropicalforestscomparinghumanobservationscameratrapsandpassiveacousticsensors AT pjstephenson methodsforwildlifemonitoringintropicalforestscomparinghumanobservationscameratrapsandpassiveacousticsensors AT fionamaisels methodsforwildlifemonitoringintropicalforestscomparinghumanobservationscameratrapsandpassiveacousticsensors AT marcusrowcliffe methodsforwildlifemonitoringintropicalforestscomparinghumanobservationscameratrapsandpassiveacousticsensors AT christosastaras methodsforwildlifemonitoringintropicalforestscomparinghumanobservationscameratrapsandpassiveacousticsensors AT patrickajansen methodsforwildlifemonitoringintropicalforestscomparinghumanobservationscameratrapsandpassiveacousticsensors AT jaapvanderwaarde methodsforwildlifemonitoringintropicalforestscomparinghumanobservationscameratrapsandpassiveacousticsensors AT liesbethehmsterck methodsforwildlifemonitoringintropicalforestscomparinghumanobservationscameratrapsandpassiveacousticsensors AT pitaaverweij methodsforwildlifemonitoringintropicalforestscomparinghumanobservationscameratrapsandpassiveacousticsensors AT tombruce methodsforwildlifemonitoringintropicalforestscomparinghumanobservationscameratrapsandpassiveacousticsensors AT stephaniebrittain methodsforwildlifemonitoringintropicalforestscomparinghumanobservationscameratrapsandpassiveacousticsensors AT marijkevankuijk methodsforwildlifemonitoringintropicalforestscomparinghumanobservationscameratrapsandpassiveacousticsensors
_version_	1718405322647797760

Methods for wildlife monitoring in tropical forests: Comparing human observations, camera traps, and passive acoustic sensors

Ejemplares similares