Estimating Site Occupancy and Detection Probability Parameters for Meso- And Large Mammals in a Coastal Ecosystem

Abstract Large-scale, multispecies monitoring programs are widely used to assess changes in wildlife populations but they often assume constant detectability when documenting species occurrence. This assumption is rarely met in practice because animal populations vary across time and space. As a result, detectability of a species can be influenced by a number of physical, biological, or anthropogenic factors (e.g., weather, seasonality, topography, biological rhythms, sampling methods). To evaluate some of these influences, we estimated site occupancy rates using species-specific detection probabilities for meso- and large terrestrial mammal species on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA. We used model selection to assess the influence of different sampling methods and major environmental factors on our ability to detect individual species. Remote cameras detected the most species (9), followed by cubby boxes (7) and hair traps (4) over a 13-month period. Estimated site occupancy rates were similar among sampling methods for most species when detection probabilities exceeded 0.15, but we question estimates obtained from methods with detection probabilities between 0.05 and 0.15, and we consider methods with lower probabilities unacceptable for occupancy estimation and inference. Estimated detection probabilities can be used to accommodate variation in sampling methods, which allows for comparison of monitoring programs using different protocols. Vegetation and seasonality produced species-specific differences in detectability and occupancy, but differences were not consistent within or among species, which suggests that our results should be considered in the context of local habitat features and life history traits for the target species. We believe that site occupancy is a useful state variable and suggest that monitoring programs for mammals using occupancy data consider detectability prior to making inferences about species distributions or population change.

[1]  M. Soulé,et al.  Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system , 1999, Nature.

[2]  William J. Zielinski,et al.  American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine : survey methods for their detection / [technical editors], William J. Zielinski, Thomas E. Kucera. , 1998 .

[3]  R. Warren,et al.  Comparisons of Lethal and Nonlethal Techniques to Reduce Raccoon Depredation of Sea Turtle Nests , 1997 .

[4]  Kenneth H. Pollock,et al.  Large scale wildlife monitoring studies: statistical methods for design and analysis , 2002 .

[5]  Douglas H. Johnson,et al.  Sampling designs for carnivore scent-station surveys , 2003 .

[6]  James D. Nichols,et al.  Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Mammals , 1996 .

[7]  D. MacKenzie.  Occupancy Estimation and Modeling: Inferring Patterns and Dynamics of Species Occurrence , 2005 .

[8]  R. Noss.  Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A Hierarchical Approach , 1990 .

[9]  Darryl I. MacKenzie,et al.  Assessing the fit of site-occupancy models , 2004 .

[10]  M. R. Fuller,et al.  Estimation of the proportion of an area occupied by an animal species , 1986 .

[11]  W L Kendall,et al.  Using Open Robust Design Models to Estimate Temporary Emigration from Capture—Recapture Data , 2001, Biometrics.

[12]  Howard J. Stains.  Field Key to Guard Hair of Middle Western Furbearers , 1958 .

[13]  W. Alverson,et al.  Forests Too Deer: Edge Effects in Northern Wisconsin , 1988 .

[14]  Paul C. Paquet,et al.  Conservation Biology and Carnivore Conservation in the Rocky Mountains , 1996 .

[15]  W. Kendall,et al.  HOW SHOULD DETECTION PROBABILITY BE INCORPORATED INTO ESTIMATES OF RELATIVE ABUNDANCE , 2002 .

[16]  J. Andrew Royle,et al.  ESTIMATING ABUNDANCE FROM REPEATED PRESENCE–ABSENCE DATA OR POINT COUNTS , 2003 .

[17]  J. Nichols,et al.  ESTIMATING SITE OCCUPANCY, COLONIZATION, AND LOCAL EXTINCTION WHEN A SPECIES IS DETECTED IMPERFECTLY , 2003 .

[18]  D. Foster,et al.  Vegetation variation across Cape Cod, Massachusetts: environmental and historical determinants , 2002 .

[19]  Gary C. White,et al.  Monitoring Vertebrate Populations , 1998 .

[20]  David W. Macdonald,et al.  Validating mammal monitoring methods and assessing the performance of volunteers in wildlife conservation—“Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodies ?” , 2003 .

[21]  Michael Taylor.  Diversity of life , 1994, Nature.

[22]  Peter P. Pratt,et al.  Archaeological Survey of the Flint Creek Project for the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service , 1974 .

[23]  H. Andrén,et al.  Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review , 1994 .

[24]  J. Grier,et al.  Differential effects of coyotes and red foxes on duck nest success , 1995 .

[25]  Darryl I. MacKenzie,et al.  Designing occupancy studies: general advice and allocating survey effort , 2005 .

[26]  K. Pollock,et al.  ESTIMATING SITE OCCUPANCY AND SPECIES DETECTION PROBABILITY PARAMETERS FOR TERRESTRIAL SALAMANDERS , 2004 .

[27]  H. Akaike,et al.  Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle , 1973 .

[28]  J. Nichols,et al.  ESTIMATING SPECIES RICHNESS: THE IMPORTANCE OF HETEROGENEITY IN SPECIES DETECTABILITY , 1998 .

[29]  J. Ray.  Mesocarnivores of Northeastern North America : status and conservation issues , 2000 .

[30]  J. Nichols,et al.  Investigating species co-occurrence patterns when species are detected imperfectly , 2004 .

[31]  James D. Nichols,et al.  Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time , 2001 .

[32]  G. Niemi,et al.  A critical analysis on the use of indicator species in management , 1997 .

[33]  K. Burnham,et al.  Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals , 1999 .

[34]  R. Wallis.  A key for the identification of guard hairs of some Ontario mammals , 1993 .

[35]  R. Barlow,et al.  Geologic map of Cape Cod and the Islands, Massachusetts , 1986 .

[36]  J. Andrew Royle,et al.  ESTIMATING SITE OCCUPANCY RATES WHEN DETECTION PROBABILITIES ARE LESS THAN ONE , 2002, Ecology.

[37]  K. Crooks.  Relative Sensitivities of Mammalian Carnivores to Habitat Fragmentation , 2002 .

[38]  M. Richmond,et al.  Track Plate Enclosures: Box Designs Affecting Attractiveness to Riparian Mammals , 2003 .

[39]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Model selection and multimodel inference : a practical information-theoretic approach , 2003 .

[40]  J. J. McManus.  Activity of captive Didelphis marsupialis. , 1971, Journal of mammalogy.

[41]  H. J. Oosting.  Ecological processes and vegetation of the maritime strand in the Southeastern United States , 1954, The Botanical Review.

[42]  R. T. Brooks,et al.  Assessing remotely triggered cameras for surveying carnivore distribution , 2002 .

[43]  G. Mowat,et al.  Estimating marten Martes americana population size using hair capture and genetic tagging , 2002, Wildlife Biology.