干旱区生态环境知识资源中心(Arid): Costs and Precision of Fecal DNA Mark-Recapture versus Traditional Mark-Resight

Arid

DOI	10.1002/wsb.1119
	Costs and Precision of Fecal DNA Mark-Recapture versus Traditional Mark-Resight
	Pfeiler, Stephen S.; Conner, Mary M.; Mckeever, Jane S.; Stephenson, Thomas R.; German, David W.; Crowhurst, Rachel S.; Prentice, Paige R.; Epps, Clinton W.
通讯作者	Pfeiler, SS
来源期刊	WILDLIFE SOCIETY BULLETIN
ISSN	1938-5463
出版年	2020
卷号	44 期号:3 页码:531-542
英文摘要	Wildlife managers often need to estimate population abundance to make well-informed decisions. However, obtaining such estimates can be difficult and costly, particularly for species with small populations, wide distributions, and spatial clustering of individuals. For this reason, DNA surveys and capture-recapture modeling has become increasingly common where direct observation is consistently difficult or counts are small or variable. We compared the precision, as indicated by the coefficient of variation (CV), and cost-effectiveness of 2 methods to estimate abundance of desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) populations: traditional ground-based mark-resight and fecal DNA capture-recapture. In the Marble Mountains in the Mojave Desert of southeastern California, USA, we conducted annual ground-based mark-resight surveys and collected fecal samples at water sources concurrently during the dry seasons (Jun-Jul) of 2016 and 2017. Fecal DNA samples were genotyped to identify unique individuals. The Lincoln-Peterson bias-corrected estimator and Huggins closed-capture recapture models were used to estimate abundance for the ground-based mark resight and fecal DNA capture-recapture, respectively. We compared costs between the 2 methods for our study and used simulations to estimate costs for a variety of possible sampling scenarios for our study system based on field-based estimates. Population abundance estimates from fecal DNA capture-recapture achieved much greater precision (CV = 5-7%) than estimates derived from ground-based mark-resight (CV = 21-56%). Our simulations indicated that for a population of 100, 2 sampling occasions, and resight probability of 0.20, the lowest CV obtained by mark-resight was approximately 12%. We predict the cost of abundance estimates for this level of precision (CV = 12%) from fecal DNA capture-recapture would be 28% of the cost of ground-based mark-resight (i.e., a 72% cost reduction). We conclude that fecal DNA capture-recapture is a highly cost-effective alternative for estimating abundance of relatively small populations (<= 300) of desert bighorn sheep. More broadly, integrating simulated study designs with cost analyses provides a tool to identify the most effective method for estimating abundance over a wide variety of sampling scenarios. (c) 2020 The Wildlife Society.
英文关键词	California capture-recapture desert bighorn sheep fecal DNA ground survey mark-resight Mojave Desert noninvasive genetic sampling Ovis canadensis nelsoni
类型	Article
语种	英语
收录类别	SCI-E
WOS记录号	WOS:000564455900001
WOS关键词	DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP ; CAPTURE-RECAPTURE ; MULE DEER ; MOUNTAIN SHEEP ; HABITAT USE ; COMPUTER-PROGRAM ; POPULATION ; ABUNDANCE ; SURVIVAL ; RESPONSES
WOS类目	Biodiversity Conservation
WOS研究方向	Biodiversity & Conservation
资源类型	期刊论文
条目标识符	http://119.78.100.177/qdio/handle/2XILL650/325911
作者单位	[Pfeiler, Stephen S.; Conner, Mary M.] Utah State Univ, Wildland Resources Dept, 5230 Old Main Hill,NR 206, Logan, UT 84322 USA; [Mckeever, Jane S.; Prentice, Paige R.] Calif Dept Fish & Wildlife, 787 N Main St, Bishop, CA 93514 USA; [Stephenson, Thomas R.; German, David W.] Calif Dept Fish & Wildlife, Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Recovery Program, 787 N Main St,Suite 220, Bishop, CA 93514 USA; [Crowhurst, Rachel S.; Epps, Clinton W.] Oregon State Univ, Dept Fisheries & Wildlife, 104 Nash Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331 USA; [Pfeiler, Stephen S.] Caltrans Dist 9,500 S Main St, Bishop, CA 93514 USA
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714	Pfeiler, Stephen S.,Conner, Mary M.,Mckeever, Jane S.,et al. Costs and Precision of Fecal DNA Mark-Recapture versus Traditional Mark-Resight[J],2020,44(3):531-542.
APA	Pfeiler, Stephen S..,Conner, Mary M..,Mckeever, Jane S..,Stephenson, Thomas R..,German, David W..,...&Epps, Clinton W..(2020).Costs and Precision of Fecal DNA Mark-Recapture versus Traditional Mark-Resight.WILDLIFE SOCIETY BULLETIN,44(3),531-542.
MLA	Pfeiler, Stephen S.,et al."Costs and Precision of Fecal DNA Mark-Recapture versus Traditional Mark-Resight".WILDLIFE SOCIETY BULLETIN 44.3(2020):531-542.