Evaluating methods for counting cryptic carnivores
Abstract
Numerous techniques have been proposed to estimate carnivore abundance and density, but few have been validated against populations of known size. We used a density estimate established by intensive monitoring of a population of radiotagged leopards ( Panthera pardus ) with a detection probability of 1.0 to evaluate efficacy of track counts and camera‐trap surveys as population estimators. We calculated densities from track counts using 2 methods and compared performance of 10 methods for calculating the effectively sampled area for camera‐trapping data. Compared to our reference density (7.33 ± 0.44 leopards/100 km 2 ), camera‐trapping generally produced more accurate but less precise estimates than did track counts. The most accurate result (6.97 ± 1.88 leopards/100 km 2 ) came from camera‐trap data with a sampled area buffered by a boundary strip representing the mean maximum distance moved by leopards outside the survey area (MMDMOSA) established by telemetry. However, contrary to recent suggestions, the traditional method of using half the mean maximum distance moved from photographic recaptures did not result in gross overestimates of population density (6.56 ± 1.92 leopards/100 km 2 ) but rather displayed the next best performance after MMDMOSA. The only track‐count method comparable to reference density employed a capture‐recapture framework applied to data when individuals were identified from their tracks (6.45 ± 1.43 leopards/100 km 2 ) but the underlying assumptio…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures
Karanth, K. U., & Nichols, J. D. (1998) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079[2852:eotdii]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,176 · cited 6× · see citing works
“However, standard error of our estimated population size (3.91) and probability of capture per occasion (0.14) were comparable to other cameratrapping studies of large felids (Karanth and Nichols 1998, Silver et al. 2004, Karanth et al. 2004, Soisalo and Cavalcanti 2006).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialStander, P. E. (1998) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2664.1998.00313.x · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Funston, P. J., Frank, L., Stephens, T., Davidson, Z., Loveridge, A., Macdonald, D. M., Durant, S., Packer, C., Mosser, A., & Ferreira, S. M. (2010) · Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.2009.00682.x · Cited by 114 · see citing works
The impact of land reform on the status of large carnivores in Zimbabwe
Williams, S. T., Williams, K. S., Joubert, C. J., & Hill, R. A. (2016) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.1537 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Bauer, D., Schiess-Meier, M., Mills, D. R., & Gusset, M. (2014) · Canadian Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1139/cjz-2013-0176 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
- Authors
- BALME, G. A., HUNTER, L. T. B., & SLOTOW, R.
- Affiliations
- University of KwaZulu-Natal (ZA)
- Panthera Corporation (US)
- Venue
- The Journal of Wildlife Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-04
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 433-441
- ISSN
- 0022-541X (ISSN-L)
- 1937-2817
- OpenAlex
- W2154341183
- Cited by
- 254
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 16
- FWCI
- 13.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Wildlife Management (publishedVersion)
- BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Research Foundation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Census and Population Estimation
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
- Keywords
- leopard, population density estimation, camera trapping, track counts, mark-recapture, individual identification, abundance estimation, survey design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review