Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nonbiological factors affecting track censuses: implications for sampling design and reliability

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Journal of Wildlife Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Track census is a widely used method for rapid faunal assessments, which assumes that differences in track count numbers mainly reflect differences in species abundance due to some biological factors. However, some methodological and climatic variables might affect results of track censuses. Here, we tested the effect of climatic variables, such as maximum temperature, humidity, wind speed or days since last rain, and methodological factors such as censusing day period, distance from transect to vegetation edge, substrate condition or observer, on the number of tracks of mammal carnivores and some of their potential prey detected in sandy substrates. We sampled 2 × 2 km2 located within the scrubland area of Doñana National Park (southwestern Spain) for carnivore and several potential prey tracks. Our results showed differences in the number of tracks detected between observers and a significant interaction between observers and the day period when censuses were carried out. Moreover, the variables increasing the quality of the substrate (higher environmental humidity, lower wind speed and days since last rain) not only led to a greater detection of carnivore tracks but, depending on the size of the species sampled other variables such as distance from transects to the vegetation border, also affected results. We recommend restricting sampling to certain fixed weather conditions when planning to monitor relative animal abundance from track censuses. When not possible, climatic or methodological variables should be included as covariates in analyses that try to test for the biological factors affecting wildlife abundance, taking into account that these variables, which affect the number of tracks detected could vary between years.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson DR (2001) The need to get the basics right in wildlife studies. Wildl Soc Bull 29:1294–1297

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin MP (2002) Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling. Ecol Model 157:101–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balme GA, Hunter LTB, Slotow R (2009) Evaluating methods for counting cryptic carnivores. J Wildl Manag 73(3):433–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayne E, Moses R, Boutin S (2005) Evaluation of winter tracking protocols as a method for monitoring mammals in the Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Program. Rep Alta Biodivers Monit Progr, Vegreville, Alberta, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayne EM, Boutin S et al (2008) Ecological factors influencing the spatial pattern of Canada lynx relative to its southern range edge in Alberta, Canada. Can J Zool Rev Can Zool 86(10):1189–1197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bider JR (1968) Animal activity in uncontrolled terrestrial communities as determined by a sand transect technique. Ecol Monogr 38(3):269–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaum N, Tietjen B et al (2009) Impact of livestock husbandry on small- and medium-sized carnivores in Kalahari savannah rangelands. J Wildl Manag 73(1):60–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL (1993) Distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. Chapman and Hall, London, p 446

    Google Scholar 

  • Caughley G, Sinclair ARE (1994) Wildlife ecology and management. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawley MJ (2005) Statistics: an introduction using R. Wiley, Chichester

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Datta A, Anand MO, Naniwadekar R (2008) Empty forests: large carnivore and prey abundance in Namdapha National Park, north-east India. Biol Conserv 141(5):1429–1435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeman RM (2003) More on the need to get the basics right: population indices. Wildl Soc Bull 31:286–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans J (2006) Observer error in identifying species using indirect signs: analysis of a river otter track survey technique. Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

  • Evans et al (2009) Determining observer reliability in counts of river otter tracks. J Wildl Manag 73:426–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funston PJ, Frank L et al (2010) Substrate and species constraints on the use of track incidences to estimate African large carnivore abundance. J Zool 281(1):56–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Garel M, Bonenfant C, Hamann JL, Klein F, Gaillard JM (2010) Are abundance indices derived from spotlight counts reliable to monitor red deer populations? Wildl Biol 16(1)

  • Gibbs JP (2000) Monitoring populations. In: Boitani L, Fuller T (eds) Research techniques in animal ecology: controversies and consequences. Columbia Univ Press, New York, pp 213–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber B, Reineking B et al (2008) A new method for estimating visitation rates of cryptic animals via repeated surveys of indirect signs. J Appl Ecol 45(2):728–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gusset M, Burgener N (2005) Estimating larger carnivore numbers from track counts and measurements. Afr J Ecol 43(4):320–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hastie TJ, Tibshirani RJ (1990) Generalized additive models. Chapman & Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayward GD, Miquelle DG et al (2002) Monitoring Amur tiger populations: characteristics of track surveys in snow. Wildl Soc Bull 30(4):1150–1159

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes JJ, Ward D (1993) Predation risk and distance to cover affect foraging behaviour in Namib Desert gerbils. Anim Behav 46:1243–1245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennelle CS, Runge MC, MacKenzie DI (2002) The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals: a comment on misleading conclusions. Anim Conserv 5:119–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karanth KU, Nichols JD et al (2003) Science deficiency in conservation practice: the monitoring of tiger populations in India. Anim Conserv 6:141–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kufner MB (1986) Tamaño actividad, densidad relativa y preferencias de hábitat de los pequeños y medianos mamíferos de Doñana, como factores condicionantes de su tasa de predación. Thesis, Universidad Autónoma, Madrid, Spain

  • Kufner MB, Moreno YS (1989) Abundancia y amplitud de los desplazamientos de Apodemus sylvaticus en cuatro biotopos de Doñana que difieren en cobertura vegetal. Doñana, Acta Vertebrata 16:179–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebenberg et al (2010) Practical tracking. Stackpole Books

  • Long et al 2008. Noninvasive survey methods for carnivores. Island Press

  • MacKenzie DI, Kendall WL (2002) How should detection probability be incorporated into estimates of relative abundance. Ecology 83:2387–2393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills LS, Citta J et al (2000) Estimating animal abundance using non-invasive DNA sampling: promise and pitfalls. Ecol Appl 10(1):283–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno S, Villafuerte R, Delibes M (1996) Cover is safe during the day but dangerous at night: the use of vegetation by European wild rabbits. Can J Zool 74:1656–1660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newsome AE, Parer I, Catling PC (1989) Prolonged prey suppression by carnivores—predator-removal experiments. Oecologia 78:458–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols JD, Hines JE, Sauer JR, Fallon FW, Fallon JE, Heglund PJ (2000) A double-observer approach for estimating detection probability and abundance from counts. Auk 117:393–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton PM (1990) How many leopards? A criticism of Martin and de Meulenaer’s population estimates for Africa. S Afr J Sci 86:218–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Odonoghue M, Boutin S et al (1997) Numerical responses of coyotes and lynx to the snowshoe hare cycle. Oikos 80(1):150–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palomares F, Delibes M et al (2001) Spatial ecology of Iberian lynx and abundance of European rabbits in South western Spain. Wildl Monogr 148:1–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstock SS, Anderson DR, Giesen KM, Leukering T, Carter MF (2002) Landbird counting techniques: current practices and an alternative. Auk 119:46–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell JC, Hasler N et al (2009) Automatic track recognition of footprints for identifying cryptic species. Ecol 90:2007–2013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadlier LMJ, Webbon CC et al (2004) Methods of monitoring red foxes Vulpes vulpes and badgers Meles meles: are field signs the answer? Mamm Rev 34:–7598

  • Sargeant GA, Sovada MA et al (2005) Markov chain Monte Carlo estimation of species distributions: a case study of the swift fox in western Kansas. J Wildl Manag 69:483–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapira I, Sultan H et al (2008) Agricultural farming alters predator–prey interactions in nearby natural habitats. Anim Conserv 11(1):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short J, Turner B, Risbey DA, Carnamah R (1997) Control of feral cats for nature conservation: II. Population reduction by poisoning. Wildl Res 24:703–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silveira L, Jácomo ATA, Diniz-Filho JAF (2003) Camera trap, line transect census and track surveys: a comparative evaluation. Biol Conserv 114:351–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smallwood KS, Fitzhugh EL (1995) A track count for estimating mountain lion Felis concolor californica population trend. Biol Conserv 71:251–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stander PE (1998) Spoor counts as indices of large carnivore populations: the relationship between spoor frequency, sampling effort and true density. J Appl Ecol 35:378–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson RO (1986) Development of lynx population estimation techniques. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Project W-22-2, W-22-3, W-22-4, and W-22-5, Res. Final Report, 84 pp

  • Thompson ID, Davidson IJ et al (1989) Use of track transects to measure the relative occurrence of some boreal mammals in uncut forest and regenerations stands. Can J Zool 67:1816–1823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson WL, White GC, Gowan C (1998) Monitoring vertebrate populations. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dyke FG, Brocke RH, Shaw HG (1986) Use of road track counts as indexes of mountain lion presence. J Wildl Manag 50(1):102–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts CH, Thornburrow D et al (2008) Tracking tunnels: a novel method for detecting a threatened New Zealand giant weta (Orthoptera: Anostostomatidae). N Z J Ecol 31:92–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams BK, Nichols JD, Conroy MJ (2002) Analysis and management of animal populations: modeling, estimation, and decision making. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA, pp 1–1040

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson GJ, Delahay RJ (2001) A review of methods to estimate the abundance of terrestrial carnivores using field signs and observation. Wildl Res 28(2):151–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoccuz NG, Nichols JD, Boulinier T (2001) Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time. Trends Ecol Evol 16:446–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaumyslova OYu (2000) Long term population-dynamics of ungulates in the Sikhote-Alin Reserve from winter transect count data. In: Astafiev AA (ed) Analysis of long-term monitoring data of nature components in nature reserves in the Russian Far East. USAID, Dalnauka, Vladivostok, pp 70–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Zielinski WJ, Schlexer FV (2009) Inter-observer variation in identifying mammals from their tracks at enclosed track plate stations. Northwest Sci 83(4):299–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zielinski WJ, Kucera TE, Barrett RH (1995) American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine: survey methods for their detection. USDA forest service, Pacific Southwest Research Station general technical report PSW-GTR-157, Albany, CA

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the projects CGL2004-00346/BOS (Spanish Ministry of Education and Science) and 17/2005 (Spanish Ministry of the Environment; National Parks Research Program). Land-Rover España lent us two vehicles for this work. We are very grateful especially to J.C. Rivilla for their assistance during fieldwork. C. Soto was also supported by a JAE-Predoc grant from the CSIC.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Conservation Biology, Estación Biológica de Doñana CSIC, C/Américo Vespucio, s/n, 41092, Isla de la Cartuja, Seville, Spain

    Carolina Ángela Soto Navarro, Sonja Desniça & Francisco Palomares Fernández

Authors
  1. Carolina Ángela Soto Navarro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sonja Desniça
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francisco Palomares Fernández
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carolina Ángela Soto Navarro.

Additional information

Communicated by P. Acevedo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Soto Navarro, C.Á., Desniça, S. & Palomares Fernández, F. Nonbiological factors affecting track censuses: implications for sampling design and reliability. Eur J Wildl Res 58, 117–126 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-011-0551-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-011-0551-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation