Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Combining citizen science and recreational hunters to monitor exotic ungulates and native wildlife in a protected area of northeastern Argentina

Biological Invasions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Monitoring wildlife population trends is essential for resource management and invasive species control, but monitoring data are hard to acquire. Citizen science projects may monitor species occurrence patterns in time and space in a cost-effective way. A systematic management program of exotic wild boar (Sus scrofa) and axis deer (Axis axis) in a protected area of northeastern Argentina (El Palmar National Park) provided a framework for implementing a wildlife monitoring system based on park-affiliated hunters. We assessed the level of agreement between three indices of relative abundance: hunter sightings and camera trapping for wild boar, axis deer, capybaras (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris), brown brocket deer (Mazama guazoubira), and crab-eating and pampas foxes combined (Cerdocyon thous and (Lycalopex gymnocercus), and catch per unit effort (CPUE) for both exotic ungulates only. Most (74%) hunting parties participated in the monitoring program and contributed to its sustainability. Bland-Altman plots displayed large levels of agreement between methods across species, with larger systematic differences between sighting and camera-trapping indices for native species. Restricting camera-trapping to the same time window as hunter sightings substantially increased the agreement between methods across species. Sighting and CPUE indices revealed similar temporal trends and large variations in spatial patterns between species. Comparison of the number of sighted and killed exotic ungulates indicated that, on average, 17% of wild boar and 75% of axis deer escaped hunters. The three indices were appropriate metrics for management purposes and corroborated the sustained, high-level abundance of axis deer and low numbers of wild boar in recent years.

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

Access this article

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
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Code availability

No custom codes were developed during the study. All image processing and analysis were conducted using pre-built tools. Please refer to the methods section for further details.

References

  • Allen ML, Roberts NM, Bauder JM (2020) Relationships of catch-per-unit-effort metrics with abundance vary depending on sampling method and population trajectory. PloS one 15(5):e0233444

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson DR (2003) Response to Engeman: index values rarely constitute reliable information. Wildl Soc Bull 31:288–291

    Google Scholar 

  • August TA, Fox R, Roy DB, Pocock MJO (2020) Data-derived metrics describing the behaviour of field-based citizen scientists provide insights for project design and modelling bias. Sci Rep 10:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Batista W, Rolhauser A, Biganzoli F, Burkart S, Goveto L, Maranta A, Pignataro A, Morandeira N, Rabadán M (2014) Las comunidades vegetales de la sabana del Parque Nacional El Palmar (Argentina). Darwiniana, Nueva Serie 2:5–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Bland MJ, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 327:307–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135–160

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blossey B (1999) Before, during and after: The need for long-term monitoring in invasive plant species management. Biol Invasions 1:301–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton AC, Neilson E, Moreira D, Ladle A, Steenweg R, Fisher JT, Bayne E, Boutin S (2015) Wildlife camera trapping: A review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes. J Appl Ecol 52:675–685

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannon AR, Chamberlain DE, Toms MP, Hatchwell BJ, Gaston KJ (2005) Trends in the use of private gardens by wild birds in Great Britain 1995–2002. J Appl Ecol 42:659–671

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattadori IM, Haydon DT, Thirgood SJ, Hudson PJ (2003) Are indirect measures of abundance a useful index of population density? The case of red grouse harvesting. Oikos 100:439–446

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler M, See L, Copas K et al (2017) Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring. Biol Conserv 213:280–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Crall AW, Jarnevich CS, Young NE et al (2015) Citizen science contributes to our knowledge of invasive plant species distributions. Biol Invasions 17:2415–2427

    Google Scholar 

  • Crespo JA (1982) Introducción a la ecología de los mamíferos del Parque Nacional El Palmar, Entre Ríos. Anales de Parques Nacionales (Argentina) 15:1–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Cretois B, Linnell JDC, Grainger M, Nilsen EB, Rød JK (2020) Hunters as citizen scientists: contributions to biodiversity monitoring in Europe. Glob Ecol Conserv 23:e01077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cusack JJ, Dickman AJ, Rowcliffe JM, Carbone C, Macdonald DW, Coulson T (2015) Random versus game trail-based camera trap placement strategy for monitoring terrestrial mammal communities. PLoS One 10:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Danielsen F, Burgess ND, Balmford A et al (2009) Local participation in natural resource monitoring: A characterization of approaches. Conserv Biol 23:31–42

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davis NE, Bennett A, Forsyth DM et al (2016) A systematic review of the impacts and man- agement of introduced deer (family Cervidae) in Australia. Wildl Res 43:515–532

    Google Scholar 

  • De Mattos Vieira M, Von Muhlen E, Shepard G (2015) Participatory monitoring and management of subsistence hunting in the piagaçu-purus reserve, Brazil. Conserv Soc 13:254–264

    Google Scholar 

  • DeCesare NJ, Newby JR, Boccadori VJ et al (2016) Calibrating minimum counts and catch-per-unit-effort as indices of moose population trend. Wildl Soc Bull 40:537–547

    Google Scholar 

  • Delaney DG, Sperling CD, Adams CS, Leung B (2008) Marine invasive species: validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks. Biol Invasions 10:117–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobson ADM, Milner-Gulland EJ, Aebischer NJ et al (2020) Making messy data work for conservation. One Earth 2:455–465

    Google Scholar 

  • El Bizri HR, Fa JE, Lemos LP, Campos-Silva JV, Vasconcelos Neto CF, Valsecchi J, Mayor P (2021) Involving local communities for effective citizen science: determining game species’ reproductive status to assess hunting effects in tropical forests. J Appl Ecol 58:224–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeman RM (2005) Indexing principles and a widely applicable paradigm for indexing animal populations. Wildl Res 32:203–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans C, Abrams E, Reitsma R, Roux K, Salmonsen L, Marra PP (2005) The neighborhood nestwatch program: Participant outcomes of a citizen-science ecological research project. Conserv Biol 19:589–594

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert N, Clare JDJ, Stenglein JL, Zuckerberg B (2021) Abundance estimation methods for unmarked animals with camera traps. Conserv Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13517

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gürtler RE, Izquierdo VM, Gil G, Cavicchia M, Maranta A (2017) Coping with wild boar in a conservation area: impacts of a 10-year management control program in north-eastern Argentina. Biol Invasions 19:11–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Gürtler RE, Rodríguez-Planes LI, Gil G, Izquierdo VM, Cavicchia M, Maranta A (2018) Differential long-term impacts of a management control program of axis deer and wild boar in a protected area of north-eastern Argentina. Biol Invasions 20:1431–1447

    Google Scholar 

  • Harley SJ, Myers RA, Dunn A (2001) Is catch-per-unit-effort proportional to abundance? Can J Fish Aquat 58:1760–1772

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess SC, Muise J, Schipper J (2015) Anatomy of an eradication effort. Removing Hawaii’s illegally introduced deer. Wildl Prof 9:26–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmeester TR, Rowcliffe JM, Jansen PA (2017) A simple method for estimating the effective detection distance of camera traps. Remote Sens Ecol Conserv 3:81–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Hone J (2002) Feral pigs in Namadgi National Park, Australia: dynamics, impacts and management. Biol Conserv 105:231–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Hope RM (2013) Rmisc: Ryan Miscellaneous. R package version 1.5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Rmisc

  • Howe EJ, Buckland ST, Després-Einspenner ML, Kühl HS (2017) Distance sampling with camera traps. Methods Ecol Evol 8:1558–1565

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulme PE (2006) Beyond control: wider implications for the management of biological invasions. J Appl Ecol 43:835–847

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenks KE, Chanteap P, Damrongchainarong K, Cutter P, Cutter P, Redford T, Lynam AJ, Howard JG, Leimgruber P (2011) Using relative abundance indices from camera-trapping to test wildlife conservation hypotheses - an example from Khao Yai National Park, Thailand. Trop Conserv Sci 4:113–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeschke JM (2008) Across islands and continents, mammals are more successful invaders than birds. Divers Distrib 14:913–916

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancia RA, Bishir JW, Conner MC, Rosenberry CS (1996) Use of catch-effort to estimate population size. Wildl Soc Bull 24:731–737

    Google Scholar 

  • Lizarralde M (2016) Especies exóticas invasoras (EEI) en Argentina: categorización de mamíferos invasores y alternativas de manejo. Mastozool Neotrop 23:267–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe S, Browne M, Boudjelas S, De Poorter M (2004) 100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species: a selection from the global invasive species database. Invasive Species Specialist Group, Auckland

  • Marrocoli S, Nielsen MR, Morgan D, van Loon T, Kulik L, Kühl H (2019) Using wildlife indicators to facilitate wildlife monitoring in hunter-self monitoring schemes. Ecol Indic 105:254–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayor P, El Bizri HR, Bodmer RE, Bowler M (2017) Assessment of mammal reproduction for hunting sustainability through community-based sampling of species in the wild. Conserv Biol 31:912–923

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McKinley DC, Miller-Rushing AJ, Ballard HL et al (2017) Citizen science can improve conservation science, natural resource management, and environmental protection. Biol Conserv 208:15–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Meek PD, Ballard G, Claridge A et al (2014) Recommended guiding principles for reporting on camera trapping research. Biodivers Conserv 23:2321–2343

    Google Scholar 

  • Merino ML, Carpinetti BN, Abba AM (2009) Invasive Mammals in the National Parks System of Argentina. Nat Areas J 29:42–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols JD, Williams BK (2006) Monitoring for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 21:668–673

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Noss A, Oetting I, Cuéllar RL (2005) Hunter Self-monitoring by the Isoseño-Guaraní in the Bolivian Chaco. Biodivers Conserv 14:2679–2693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-005-8401-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pacifici K, Reich BJ, Miller DA, Pease BS (2019) Resolving misaligned spatial data with integrated species distribution models. Ecol 100:e02709

  • Palmer MS, Swanson A, Kosmala M, Arnold T, Packer C (2018) Evaluating relative abundance indices for terrestrial herbivores from large-scale camera trap surveys. Afr J Ecol 56:791–803

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker RA, Weir CJ, Rubio N et al (2016) Application of mixed effects limits of agreement in the presence of multiple sources of variability: Exemplar from the comparison of several devices to measure respiratory rate in COPD patients. PLoS One 11:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Pebesma E (2018) Simple features for R: standardized support for spatial vector data. The R Journal 10, 439-446. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2018-009

  • QGIS.org (2021) QGIS Geographic Information System. QGIS Association. http://www.qgis.org/

  • R Core Team (2020) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/

  • Rist J, Milner-Gulland EJ, Cowlishaw GU, Rowcliffe M (2010) Hunter reporting of catch per unit effort as a monitoring tool in a bushmeat-harvesting system. Conserv Biol 24:489–499

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rowcliffe JM, Field J, Turvey ST, Carbone C (2008) Estimating animal density using camera traps without the need for individual recognition. J Appl Ecol 45:1228–1236

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz Selmo R, Minotti PG, Scopel A, Parimbelli M (2007) Análisis de la heterogeneidad fisonómico-funcional de la vegetación del Parque Nacional El Palmar y su relación con la invasión por leñosas exóticas. In ‘Teledetección–Hacia un mejor entendimiento de la dinámica global y regional’. Ed. Martin, Buenos Aires, pp 257-263

  • Schaller GB (1967) The deer and the tiger. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaus J, Uzal A, Gentle LK et al (2020) Application of the Random Encounter Model in citizen science projects to monitor animal densities. Remote Sens Ecol Conserv 6:514–522

    Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D, Martin JL, Genovesi P et al (2013) Impacts of biological invasions: what’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol Evol 28:58–66

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skalski JR, Ryding KE, Millspaugh JJ (2005) Analysis of Population Indices. In: Wildlife Demography, 1st edn. Elsevier, pp 359–433

  • Sullivan BL, Wood CL, Iliff MJ, Bonney RE, Fink D, Kelling S (2009) eBird: A citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences. Biol Conserv 142:2282–2292

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson A, Kosmala M, Lintott C, Simpson R, Smith A, Packer C (2015) Snapshot Serengeti, high-frequency annotated camera trap images of 40 mammalian species in an African savanna. Sci Data 2:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennekes M (2018) tmap: Thematic Maps in R. J of Statistical Softw 84:1-39. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v084.i06

  • Toms MP, Newson SE (2006) Volunteer surveys as a means of inferring trends in garden mammal populations. Mammal Rev 36:309–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters C (2003) Folly and fantasy in the analysis of spatial catch rate data. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 60:1433–1436

    Google Scholar 

  • Warton DI, Blanchet FG, O’Hara RB, Ovaskainen O, Taskinen S, Walker SC, Hui FK (2015) So many variables: joint modeling in community ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 30:766–779

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wickham H (2016) ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickham et al (2019) Welcome to the tidyverse. J of Open Source Softw 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge with thanks the valuable assistance of park rangers: R. Achilli, C. Croci, A. Delaloye, L. Loyza, E. Munich, C. Sosa, J. Yone, and J. Zermathen; members of the UBA-sponsored volunteer program: M. Bongianino, V. Lopez Emprin, A. de Miguel, M. Burgueño, S. Spilzbarg. W. Cabascango, T. Chomarat, B. Galharret, L. Rosin, and L. Santoni; and members of the Hunting Club for Conservation “Tierra de Palmares”: C. Bonato, D. Chervo, J. Fabre, C. Gómez, Celso and Ceferino Jacquet, H. and S. Larrachao, M. Morend, E. Portillo, and A. Tisoco.

Funding

Field activities were supported by the volunteer university students’ program of the Federal Ministry of Education (2016) and UBANEX (2017). The participation of REG was supported by University of Buenos Aires (UBACYT 20020170100779BA) and Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Técnica of Argentina (PICT-2015-2921). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish and preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

GN, LIRP and REG designed the study, GN, LIRP, AM and AAM acquired the data, GN, LIRP and REG analyzed the data, GN, LIRP and REG drafted the document, GN, LIRP, AM, AAM and REG edited the document.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ricardo E. Gürtler.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Human or animal rights

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (TIF 8269 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nicosia, G., Rodríguez-Planes, L.I., Maranta, A.A. et al. Combining citizen science and recreational hunters to monitor exotic ungulates and native wildlife in a protected area of northeastern Argentina. Biol Invasions 23, 3687–3702 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-021-02606-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-021-02606-4

Keywords

Navigation