Department of Anthropology and Graduate Group in Ecology, University of California Davis, Davis, California, USA.
PLoS One. 2010 May 21;5(5):e10754. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010754.
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.
METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We 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 km(2) out of 100 km(2) 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/SIGNIFICANCE: These 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.
保护主义者经常使用巢数调查来估计大型猿类的种群密度,但很难评估由此产生的估计的准确性和精确性。
方法/主要发现:我们使用数学模拟来模拟猩猩种群的筑巢行为,以比较两种常用的巢数计数方法,即“标记重测法”和“矩阵法”,对种群大小估计的质量。我们发现,即使观察者在第一次调查中错过了一小部分巢穴,标记重测法也会对种群大小产生很大的高估。无论观察者的可靠性如何,当调查工作量低时,矩阵法都会对种群大小产生大量高估。在观察者高度可靠的情况下,两种方法都需要调查研究区域的约 0.26%(在本模拟中为 100 平方公里的研究区域内调查 0.26 平方公里),才能对种群大小做出准确估计;在这种采样努力下,两种方法都能在 50%的时间内将估计值控制在真实种群大小的 33%以内。两种方法在调查努力超过研究区域的 0.26%时,收益递减。使用从其他地点得出的已发表的巢衰退估计值,会导致种群大小估计值差异很大,跨度几乎达到一个数量级。标记重测法在检测种群下降方面效果更好,即使在下降的第一年,也能将近 80%的时间检测到 5%的下降。
结论/意义:这些结果突出表明,这两种巢调查方法都不能在任何合理的调查工作量下产生高度可靠的种群大小估计值,尽管这两种方法都可以用来获取一个区域的总种群大小估计值。保护管理者应该确定这些估计值的质量是否值得花费金钱和精力来获得,并且通常应该将调查工作量限制在研究区域的 0.26%以内,除非特定的管理目标需要更密集的采样。使用特定地点和特定时间的巢衰退率(或标记重测法)是准确估算种群大小的关键。使用充足采样的标记重测调查方法有望用于检测种群下降。