Open AccessThe influence of movement on the occupancy–density relationship at small spatial scales
Author(s) -
Rogan Matthew S.,
Balme Guy A.,
Distiller Greg,
Pitman Ross T.,
Broadfield Joleen,
Mann Gareth K. H.,
WhittingtonJones Gareth M.,
Thomas Lisa H.,
O'Riain M. Justin
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
ecosphere
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.255
H-Index - 57
ISSN - 2150-8925
DOI - 10.1002/ecs2.2807
Subject(s) - occupancy , panthera , abundance (ecology) , range (aeronautics) , population density , population , home range , sampling (signal processing) , distance sampling , ecology , geography , camera trap , population size , statistics , habitat , biology , demography , mathematics , computer science , predation , sociology , composite material , computer vision , materials science , filter (signal processing)
The global decline of large carnivores demands effective and efficient methods to monitor population status, particularly using non‐invasive methods. Density is among the most useful metrics of population status because it is directly comparable across space and time. Unfortunately, density is difficult to measure reliably, especially for mobile, cryptic species. Recently, efforts have turned to approximating density based on its relationship to more readily estimable indices of occurrence. However, the relationship between density and such indices is contingent on several key assumptions that field studies often violate. Recent research has shown that these relationships are unreliable where sampling units are not independent, as is often the case when estimating density or occurrence of large carnivores. Here, we use the largest data set thus far collected for leopards ( Panthera pardus ) — 88 camera‐trap surveys undertaken in 24 protected areas between 2013 and 2018—to explore how density and other population characteristics relate to parameter estimates in occupancy and Royle–Nichols abundance models. We show how home‐range size confounds underlying relationships, with larger home ranges inflating the proportion of area used (PAU) and resulting in double counting in abundance models. Relativizing estimates of occupancy and abundance by home‐range size improved their relationship with density, but the relationship remained weak and largely uninformative for management. Our findings illustrate the pitfalls of using the PAU or abundance as implicit proxies for density and highlight the challenges of assessing population status for wide‐ranging, cryptic species across fragmented landscapes.