z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Estimating abundance of mountain ungulates incorporating imperfect detection: argali Ovis ammon in the Gobi Desert, Mongolia
Author(s) -
Wingard Ganchimeg J.,
Harris Richard B.,
Amgalanbaatar Sukh,
Reading Richard P.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
wildlife biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.566
H-Index - 52
eISSN - 1903-220X
pISSN - 0909-6396
DOI - 10.2981/10-046
Subject(s) - distance sampling , abundance (ecology) , ovis , geography , sampling (signal processing) , ecology , relative species abundance , physical geography , biology , computer science , filter (signal processing) , computer vision
Estimating the density or abundance of mountain ungulates is difficult and rarely conducted in a statistically valid manner. The rough terrain they inhabit, their group‐living habits, their relatively low density, and the difficulty of marking individuals all contribute to making rigorous estimates of abundance logistically difficult. Raw (uncalibrated) counts are usually reported, and although their drawbacks are often acknowledged, biases are rarely quantified. In September 2009, we took advantage of the presence of a radio‐marked sample of argali Ovis ammon in the Ikh Nart Nature Reserve in south‐central Mongolia, as well as the area's comparatively forgiving topography to estimate abundance simultaneously using two independent methods: distance sampling and mark‐resight sampling. Distance sampling produced an abundance estimate of 539 (95% CI: 196‐1,081) argali within a ∼ 330 km 2 study area on the same day that we visually tallied 189 animals. Mark‐resight sampling using the Poisson log‐normal model yielded an estimate of 747 (95% CI: 484‐1,009) argali when we observed, at most, 223 animals in any given day. Although both were imprecise, their similarity increases our confidence that neither estimator was highly biased. Because of budget or logistical restrictions, uncalibrated counts of mountain ungulates are often the only alternative. They should be viewed cautiously, however, and when possible, more rigorous approaches to estimating abundance should be taken.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here