Brugiere David, Fleury Marie-Claire
UMR 6552 "Ethologie, Evolution and Ecologie,", Université de Rennes I-CNRS, Station Biologique, 35380, Paimpont, France.
Primates. 2000 Oct;41(4):373-382. doi: 10.1007/BF02557648.
The line transect method is one of the main methods used to estimate primate densities. Several protocols have been proposed to analyze the data recorded under this method but none of them have been widely accepted since there is a considerable controversy about their respective accuracy. In this study, densities of the black colobus monkeyColobus satanas calculated using eight different protocols were compared with the actual density given by the home range method. Rates of polyspecific associations were also compared. The two most accurate estimates of group density (under- or overestimation <10%) were yielded by the protocol that used the maximum transect-to-animal distance and by that of using a fixed distance of 100 m. These protocols, however, underestimated individual density because counts performed from transects underestimated by 23% the average group size. The six other protocols overestimated group density by 20-195%. Factors that could explain these overestimation were discussed. Because histogram of sighting frequency showed several classes of distances with no records and because groups have been detected as far as 160 m, we suggested that the uneven topography of the study site increased the variability of the sighting distances. Combined with a relatively low number of sightings (n=23), this did not allow to identify a sharp detection distance. Rates of polyspecific association found with the two methods were similar. We recommend to investigate the influence of the topography for bias in density estimates when using the line transect method.
线 transect 法是用于估计灵长类动物密度的主要方法之一。已经提出了几种协议来分析在此方法下记录的数据,但由于它们各自的准确性存在相当大的争议,因此没有一种被广泛接受。在这项研究中,使用八种不同协议计算的黑疣猴(Colobus satanas)的密度与使用家域法给出的实际密度进行了比较。还比较了多物种关联率。使用最大 transect 到动物距离的协议和使用 100 米固定距离的协议产生了两个最准确的群体密度估计值(低估或高估<10%)。然而,这些协议低估了个体密度,因为从 transect 进行的计数低估了平均群体大小的 23%。其他六种协议高估了群体密度 20 - 195%。讨论了解释这些高估的因素。由于目击频率直方图显示了几类没有记录的距离,并且因为在 160 米远的地方都检测到了群体,我们认为研究地点不平坦的地形增加了目击距离的变异性。再加上相对较少的目击次数(n = 23),这使得无法确定一个明确的检测距离。用这两种方法发现的多物种关联率相似。我们建议在使用线 transect 法时,研究地形对密度估计偏差的影响。