English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The conservation and management of wildlife requires the accurate assessment of wildlife population sizes. However, there is a lack of synthesis of research that compares methods used to estimate population size in the wild. Using a meta-analysis approach, we compared the number of detected individuals in a study made using live trapping and less invasive approaches, such as camera trapping and genetic identification. We scanned 668 papers related to these methods and identified data for 44 populations (all focused on mammals) wherein at least two methods (live trapping, camera trapping, genetic identification) were used. We used these data to quantify the difference in number of individuals detected using trapping and less invasive methods using a regression and used the residuals from each regression to evaluate potential drivers of these trends. We found that both trapping and less invasive methods (camera traps and genetic analyses) produced similar estimates overall, but less invasive methods tended to detect more individuals compared to trapping efforts (mean = 3.17 more individuals). We also found that the method by which camera data are analyzed can significantly alter estimates of population size, such that the inclusion of spatial information was related to larger population size estimates. Finally, we compared counts of individuals made using camera traps and genetic data and found that estimates were similar but that genetic approaches identified more individuals on average (mean = 9.07 individuals). Overall, our data suggest that all of the methods used in the studies we reviewed detected similar numbers of individuals. As live trapping can be more costly than less invasive methods and can pose more risk to animal well-fare, we suggest minimally invasive methods are preferable for population monitoring when less-invasive methods can be deployed efficiently.

Comparison of Minimally Invasive Monitoring Methods and Live Trapping in Mammals