Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mwwwr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-06T03:25:51.239Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Mammals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2012

By
Charles J. Krebs
Edited by
William J. Sutherland
Charles J. Krebs
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Z4
William J. Sutherland
Affiliation:
University of East Anglia
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Census methods for mammals depend critically on the size of the species and its natural history. If species are diurnal, common and highly visible, the census problem is relatively simple. If species are nocturnal, rare and difficult to detect, the census problems are most difficult. As in all ecological census work, you need to decide the purpose of the study and the level of precision you require. Higher precision bears costs in time and money, and methods that lead to higher precision might not be practical for some species within a finite budget.

A sequence of decisions to facilitate the choice of methods for a mammal census is outlined in Figure 10.1 (Table 10.1). Just because many studies of a particular species or group of species have used a particular method does not mean that you must use this method for your study. Many studies have not used the best methods in the past, and there is no reason to continue using sub-optimal techniques that waste time and money.

Total counts

The simplest way to determine how many individuals of a particular species of mammal live in an area is to count all of them. This census method we might consider the Holy Grail of mammal-census methods, yet it can hardly ever be achieved. Total counts can be done on large mammals in restricted areas (Bookhout 1994), but one should always be sceptical of the accuracy of total counts, since in most cases to date there is a negative bias – estimated numbers are less than actual numbers.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Ecological Census Techniques
A Handbook
 , pp. 351 - 369
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allen, L., Engeman, R. & Krupa, H. (1996). Evaluation of three relative abundance indices for assessing dingo populations. Wildlife Research 23, 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, D. R. (2003). Index values rarely constitute reliable information. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31, 288–291.Google Scholar
Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P., White, G. C. & Otis, D. L. (1983). Density estimation of small-mammal populations using a trapping web and distance sampling methods. Ecology 64, 674–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Begon, M. (2003). Disease: health effects on humans, population effects on rodents. In Rats, Mice and People: Rodent Biology and Management, ed. Singleton, G. R., Hinds, L. A., Krebs, C. J. & Spratt, D. M.. Monograph No. 96. Canberra, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Reseach, pp. 13–19.Google Scholar
Blackmer, A. L., Anderson, S. K. & Weinrich, M. T. (2000). Temporal variability in features used to photo-identify humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). Marine Mammal Science 16, 338–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bondrup-Nielsen, S. (1983). Density estimation as a function of live-trapping grid and home range size. Canadian Journal of Zoology 61, 2361–2365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bookhout, T. A. (ed.) (1994). Research and Management Techniques for Wildlife and Habitats, 5th edn. Bethesda, Maryland, The Wildlife Society.Google Scholar
Boonstra, R., Kanter, M. & Krebs, C. J. (1992). A tracking technique to locate small mammals at low densities. Journal of Mammalogy 73, 683–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boonstra, R., Krebs, C. J., Boutin, S. & Eadie, J. M. (1994). Finding mammals using far-infrared thermal imaging. Journal of Mammalogy 75, 1063–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunner, H. & Coman, B. J. (1974). The Identification of Mammalian Hair. Melbourne, Inkata Press.Google Scholar
Buckland, S. T., Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P. & Laake, J. L. (1993). Distance Sampling. Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations. London, Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. (1984). The need for distance data in transect counts. Journal of Wildlife Management 48, 1248–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caughley, G. (1977). Analysis of Vertebrate Populations. London, Wiley.Google Scholar
Chitty, D. (1996). Do Lemmings Commit Suicide? Beautiful Hypotheses and Ugly Facts. New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cleator, H., Stirling, I. & Smith, T. G. (1989). Underwater vocalizations of the bearded seal (Erignathus barbartus). Canadian Journal of Zoology 67, 1900–1910.Google Scholar
Constantine, D. G. (1988). Health precautions for bat researchers. In Ecological and Behavioral Methods for the Study of Bats, ed. Kunz, T. H.. Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 491–528.Google Scholar
Day, M. G. (1966). Identification of hair and feather remains in the gut and faeces of stoats and weasels. Journal of Zoology (London) 148, 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggert, L. S., Eggert, J. A. & Woodruff, D. S. (2003). Estimating population sizes for elusive animals: the forest elephants of Kakum National Park, Ghana. Molecular Ecology 12, 1389–1402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrison, R. L. (2002). Evaluation of microscopic and macroscopic methods to identify felid hair. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30, 412–419.Google Scholar
Hubbs, A. H., Karels, T. J. & Boonstra, R. (2000). Indices of population size for burrowing mammals. Journal of Wildlife Management 64, 296–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korpimäki, E., Norrdahl, K., Klemola, T., Pettersen, T. & Stenseth, N. C. (2002). Dynamic effects of predators on cyclic voles: field experimentation and model extrapolation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 269, 991–997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krebs, C. J. (1999). Ecological Methodology, 2nd edn. Menlo Park, California, Addison Wesley Longman Inc.Google Scholar
Krebs, C. J., Boonstra, R., Nams, V. O.et al. (2001). Estimating snowshoe hare population density from pellet plots: a further evaluation. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeResche, R. E. & Rausch, R. A. (1974). Accuracy and precision in aerial moose censusing. Journal of Wildlife Management 38, 175–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindenmayer, D. B., Incoll, R. D., Cunningham, R. B.et al. (1999). Comparison of hairtube types for the detection of mammals. Wildlife Research 26, 745–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, H. & Sinclair, D. F. (1989). Correcting for visibility bias in strip transect aerial surveys of aquatic fauna. Journal of Wildlife Management 53, 1017–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mowat, G. & Paetkau, D. (2002). Estimating marten Martes americana population size using hair capture and genetic tagging. Wildlife Biology 8, 201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton-Griffiths, M. (1978). Counting Animals, 2nd edn. Nairobi, African Wildlife Leadership Foundation.Google Scholar
Donnell, C. F. J. (2002). Variability in numbers of long-tailed bats (Chalinolobus tuberculatus) roosting in Grand Canyon Cave, New Zealand: implications for monitoring population trends. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 29, 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donoghue, M., Boutin, S., Krebs, C. J. & Hofer, E. J. (1997). Numerical responses of coyotes and lynx to the snowshoe hare cycle. Oikos 80, 150–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, M. J., Miller, B. W. & Gannon, W. L. (1999). Qualitative identification of free-flying bats using the Anabat detector. Journal of Mammalogy 80, 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shea, T. J., Bogan, M. A. & Ellison, L. E. (2003). Monitoring trends in bat populations of the United States and territories: status of the science and recommendations for the future. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31, 16–29.Google Scholar
Paetkau, D. (2003). An empirical exploration of data quality in DNA-based population inventories. Molecular Ecology 12, 1375–1387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parmenter, R. R., Yates, T. L., Anderson, D. R.et al. (2003). Small-mammal density estimation: a field comparison of grid-based vs. web-based density estimators. Ecological Monographs 73, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, K. H., Nichols, J. D., Brownie, C. & Hines, J. E. (1990). Statistical inference for capture–recapture experiments. Wildlife Monographs 107, 1–97.Google Scholar
Pyle, P., Long, D. J., Schonewald, J., Jones, R. E. & Roletto, J. (2001). Historical and recent colonization of the South Farallon Islands, California, by northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus). Marine Mammal Science 17, 397–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rugh, D. J., Ferrero, R. C. & Dahlheim, M. E. (1990). Inter-observer count discrepancies in a shore-based census of gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus). Marine Mammal Science 6, 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staines, H. J. (1958). Field key to guard hair of middle western furbearers. Journal of Wildlife Management 22, 95–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenseth, N. C. & Hansson, L. (1979). Correcting for the edge effect in density estimation: explorations around a new method. Oikos 32, 337–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stirling, I., Calvert, W. & Cleator, H. (1983). Underwater vocalizations as a tool for studying the distribution and relative abundance of wintering pinnipeds in the high arctic. Arctic 36, 262–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horne, B., Schooley, R. L., Knick, S. T., Olson, G. S. & Burnham, K. P. (1997). Use of burrow entrances to indicate densities of Townsend's ground squirrels. Journal of Wildlife Management 61, 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallis, R. L. (1993). A key for the identification of guard hairs of some Ontario mammals. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71, 587–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, R. D. & Witter, M. S. (2002). Monitoring trends in bat populations through roost surveys: methods and data from Rhinolophus hipposideros. Biological Conservation 105, 255–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, G. J. & Delahay, R. J. (2001). A review of methods to estimate the abundance of terrestrial carnivores using field signs and observation. Wildlife Research 28, 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, S. C. (2001). Population growth, reproductive rate and neo-natal morbidity in a re-establishing harbour seal colony. Mammalia 65, 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Mammals
    • By Charles J. Krebs, Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Z4
  • Edited by William J. Sutherland, University of East Anglia
  • Book: Ecological Census Techniques
  • Online publication: 05 September 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790508.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Mammals
    • By Charles J. Krebs, Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Z4
  • Edited by William J. Sutherland, University of East Anglia
  • Book: Ecological Census Techniques
  • Online publication: 05 September 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790508.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Mammals
    • By Charles J. Krebs, Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Z4
  • Edited by William J. Sutherland, University of East Anglia
  • Book: Ecological Census Techniques
  • Online publication: 05 September 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790508.011
Available formats
×