Species occurrence data reflect the magnitude of animal movements better than the proximity of animal space use

Species occurrence data reflect the magnitude of animal movements better than the proximity of... Animal ecologists often use stationary point‐count surveys, such as camera traps, to collect presence–absence data and infer distribution, abundance, and density of species. Rarely do these surveys explicitly consider variations in the magnitude of animal movement despite movement assumptions being implicit in their interpretation. For example, ecologists assume the frequency of species detections at a site is associated with the intensity of local space use, but it may be more indicative of transit through that point en route to other areas. This assumption remains untested, and a resolution is critical to accurate interpretation of species occurrence data. We compared fisher (Pekania pennanti) detections collected from a camera trap array with detailed Global Positioning System‐telemetry data to test whether, at the population level, the spatial and temporal patterns of detections reflected the proximity of space use to sampling sites, or variability in the magnitude of animal movement across the study area. We also used an occupancy modeling framework to quantify the relative contributions of space use proximity and movement magnitude to estimated probabilities of site occupancy and detectability. We demonstrate that, at the population level, detection frequency and estimates of detection probability and occupancy are more closely associated with the magnitude of animal movement around a survey device than the proximity of animal space use. Variations in the magnitude of animal movement within and between species should receive greater consideration when interpreting occurrence data to correctly infer ecological processes. Not accounting for species movement, especially in multi‐species surveys, may bias inferences of ecologic processes and result in misspecified management recommendations. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Ecosphere Wiley

Species occurrence data reflect the magnitude of animal movements better than the proximity of animal space use

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/species-occurrence-data-reflect-the-magnitude-of-animal-movements-DDIsHe0MLW
Publisher
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
Copyright
© 2018 The Ecological Society of America
ISSN
2150-8925
eISSN
2150-8925
D.O.I.
10.1002/ecs2.2112
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Animal ecologists often use stationary point‐count surveys, such as camera traps, to collect presence–absence data and infer distribution, abundance, and density of species. Rarely do these surveys explicitly consider variations in the magnitude of animal movement despite movement assumptions being implicit in their interpretation. For example, ecologists assume the frequency of species detections at a site is associated with the intensity of local space use, but it may be more indicative of transit through that point en route to other areas. This assumption remains untested, and a resolution is critical to accurate interpretation of species occurrence data. We compared fisher (Pekania pennanti) detections collected from a camera trap array with detailed Global Positioning System‐telemetry data to test whether, at the population level, the spatial and temporal patterns of detections reflected the proximity of space use to sampling sites, or variability in the magnitude of animal movement across the study area. We also used an occupancy modeling framework to quantify the relative contributions of space use proximity and movement magnitude to estimated probabilities of site occupancy and detectability. We demonstrate that, at the population level, detection frequency and estimates of detection probability and occupancy are more closely associated with the magnitude of animal movement around a survey device than the proximity of animal space use. Variations in the magnitude of animal movement within and between species should receive greater consideration when interpreting occurrence data to correctly infer ecological processes. Not accounting for species movement, especially in multi‐species surveys, may bias inferences of ecologic processes and result in misspecified management recommendations.

Journal

EcosphereWiley

Published: Jan 1, 2018

Keywords: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

Monthly Plan

  • Read unlimited articles
  • Personalized recommendations
  • No expiration
  • Print 20 pages per month
  • 20% off on PDF purchases
  • Organize your research
  • Get updates on your journals and topic searches

$49/month

Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial

Best Deal — 39% off

Annual Plan

  • All the features of the Professional Plan, but for 39% off!
  • Billed annually
  • No expiration
  • For the normal price of 10 articles elsewhere, you get one full year of unlimited access to articles.

$588

$360/year

billed annually
Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial