Abstract
Camera-traps have become one of the most common tools for studying wildlife abundance and population density. Traditionally, absolute density could be estimated only for species with individual markings, using capture–recapture frameworks. Newer methods allow to estimate density of unmarked species, but these have yet to be thoroughly tested and compared against capture–recapture methods. To make this comparison requires an identifiable species, for which both types of frameworks can be used. Here, we estimate the population density of ocelots (Leopardus pardalis) in the Osa peninsula, Costa Rica, comparing methods for marked and unmarked species. We deployed camera-trap grids between 2017 and 2019, identified individuals and determined spatially resolved individual detection histories, station-specific detection frequencies and times to first detection. Estimates obtained with methods for unmarked species (Time-to-Event and Random Encounter Model) varied widely among surveys, from 11 to 169 individuals/100 km2, and were significantly different from spatial capture–recapture estimates (28.1 individuals/100 km2). Differences were largely driven by the non-random placement of cameras on human-made trails, which inflated the detection frequency. Maximizing the number of encounters benefits methods based on capture–recapture but is detrimental for methods based on random detections. Our results highlight the incompatibility between surveys designed for capture–recapture analyses, and those that assume random movement of animals. For recently developed unmarked species methods to be used for a larger and more diverse set of species, it is necessary to further test and define the requirements and factors that affect their calculations. This information will ultimately allow for a greater diversity of population and community studies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The data for this publication will be made available upon request to the authors.
References
Augustine BC, Royle JA, Kelly MJ, Satter CB, Alonso RS, Boydston EE, Crooks KR (2018) Spatial capture–recapture with partial identity: an application to camera traps. The Annals of Applied Statistics 12(1):67–95. https://doi.org/10.1214/17-AOAS1091
Borchers DL, Efford MG (2008) Spatially explicit maximum likelihood methods for capture-recapture studies. Biometrics 64(2):377–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2007.00927.x
Borchers D, Distiller G, Foster R, Harmsen B, Milazzo L (2014) Continuous-time spatially explicit capture-recapture models, with an application to a jaguar camera-trap survey. Methods Ecol Evol 5(7):656–665. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12196
Burnham KP, Overton WS (1978) Estimation of the size of a closed population when capture probabilities vary among animals. Biometrika 65(3):625–633. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/65.3.625
Burton AC, Neilson E, Moreira D, Ladle A, Steenweg R, Fisher JT, Bayne E, Boutin S (2015) REVIEW: Wildlife camera trapping: a review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes. J Appl Ecol 52(3):675–685. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12432
Bustamante A (2008) Densidad y uso de hábitat por los felinos en la parte sureste del área de amortiguamiento del parque Nacional Corcovado, Península de Osa, Costa Rica. Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica
Campos-Candela A, Palmer M, Balle S, Alós J (2018) A camera-based method for estimating absolute density in animals displaying home range behaviour. J Anim Ecol 87(3):825–837. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12787
Caravaggi A, Zaccaroni M, Riga F, Schai-Braun SC, Dick JTA, Montgomery WI, Reid N (2016) An invasive-native mammalian species replacement process captured by camera trap survey random encounter models. Remote Sens Ecol Conserv 2(1):45–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.11
Cusack JJ, Swanson A, Coulson T, Packer C, Carbone C, Dickman AJ, Kosmala M, Lintott C, Rowcliffe JM (2015) Applying a random encounter model to estimate lion density from camera traps in Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. J Wildl Manag 79(6):1014–1021. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.902
de la Torre JA, Arroyo-Gerala P, Torres-Knoop L (2016) Density and activity patterns of ocelots in the greater lacandona ecosystem. THERYA 7(2):257–269
Delisle, ZJ, Flaherty, EA, Nobbe, MR, Wzientek, CM, Swihart, RK (2021) Next-generation camera trapping: systematic review of historic trends suggests keys to expanded research applications in ecology and conservation. Front Ecol Evol 9:617996. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.617996
Di Bitetti M, Paviolo A, Angelo C (2014) Camera trap photographic rates on roads vs. off roads: location does matter. Mastozool Neotrop 21:37–46
Dillon A, Kelly MJ (2008) Ocelot home range, overlap and density: comparing radio telemetry with camera trapping. J Zool 275(4):391–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2008.00452.x
Dupont G, Royle JA, Nawaz MA, Sutherland C (2021) Optimal sampling design for spatial capture–recapture. Ecology 102(3):e03262. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3262
Efford M (2020) secr: spatially explicit capture-recapture models (4.3.3). https://cran.r-project.org/package=secr
Efford MG, Borchers DL, Byrom AE (2009) Density estimation by spatially Explicit Capture–Recapture: likelihood-based methods. Modeling demographic processes in marked populations. Springer US, pp 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-78151-8_11
Gardner B, Royle JA, Wegan MT, Rainbolt RE, Curtis PD (2010) Estimating black bear density using DNA Data from Hair Snares. J Wildl Manag 74(2):318–325. https://doi.org/10.2193/2009-101
Gilbert NA, Clare JDJ, Stenglein JL, Zuckerberg B (2021) Abundance estimation of unmarked animals based on camera-trap data. Conserv Biol 35(1):88–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13517
Gomes da Rocha D, Sollmann R, Ramalho EE, Ilha R, Tan CKW (2016) Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) density in Central Amazonia. PLoS ONE 11(5):e0154624. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154624
Gonzalez-Maya JF, Cardenal-Porras J (2011) Ocelot density in the caribbean slope of the Talamanca region, Costa Rica. Hystrix 22(2):355–360. https://doi.org/10.4404/Hystrix-22.2-4675
Gray TNE, Prum S (2012) Leopard density in post-conflict landscape, Cambodia: evidence from spatially explicit capture-recapture. J Wildl Manag 76(1):163–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.230
Harmsen BJ, Foster RJ, Quigley H (2020) Spatially explicit capture recapture density estimates: robustness, accuracy and precision in a long-term study of jaguars (Panthera onca). PLoS ONE 15(6):e0227468. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227468
Hutchinson JMC, Waser PM (2007) Use, misuse and extensions of “ideal gas” models of animal encounter. Biol Rev 82(3):335–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00014.x
Johansson Ö, Samelius G, Wikberg E, Chapron G, Mishra C, Low M (2020) Identification errors in camera-trap studies result in systematic population overestimation. Sci Rep 2020 10:1(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63367-z
Karanth KU, Nichols JD, Kumar S, Hines JE (2006) Assessing tiger population dynamics using photographic capture – recapture sampling. Ecology 87(11):2925–2937. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9623(2006)87[323:ATPD]2.0.CO;2
Kolowski JM, Alonso A (2010) Density and activity patterns of ocelots (Leopardus pardalis) in northern Peru and the impact of oil exploration activities. Biol Conserv 143(4):917–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.12.039
Loonam KE, Ausband DE, Lukacs PM, Mitchell MS, Robinson HS (2021) Estimating abundance of an unmarked, low-density species using Cameras. J Wildl Manag 85(1):87–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21950
Lucas TCD, Moorcroft EA, Freeman R, Rowcliffe JM, Jones KE (2015) A generalised random encounter model for estimating animal density with remote sensor data. Methods Ecol Evol 6(5):500–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12346
Martínez-Hernández A, Rosas-Rosas OC, Clemente-Sánchez F, Tarango-Arámbula LA, Palacio-Núñez J, Bender LC, Herrera-Haro JG (2015) Density of threatened ocelot Leopardus pardalis in the Sierra Abra-Tanchipa Biosphere Reserve, San Luis Potosí, Mexico. Oryx 49(4):619–625. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313001452
Moeller AK, Lukacs PM, Horne JS (2018) Three novel methods to estimate abundance of unmarked animals using remote cameras. Ecosphere 9(8):e02331. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2331
Mosquera D, Blake JG, Swing K, Romo D (2016) Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) density in Eastern Ecuador based on capture–recapture analyses of camera trap data. Neotrop Biodivers 2(1):51–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/23766808.2016.1168593
Murray JL, Gardner GL (1997) Leopardus pardalis. Mamm Species 548:1–10. https://doi.org/10.2307/3504082
Nakashima Y, Fukasawa K, Samejima H (2018) Estimating animal density without individual recognition using information derivable exclusively from camera traps. J Appl Ecol 55(2):735–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13059
Niedballa J, Sollmann R, Courtiol A, Wilting A (2016) camtrapR: an R package for efficient camera trap data management. Methods Ecol Evol 7(12):1457–1462. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12600
Noss AJ, Gardner B, Maffei L, Cuéllar E, Montaño R, Romero-Muñoz A, Sollman R, O’Connell AF (2012) Comparison of density estimation methods for mammal populations with camera traps in the Kaa-Iya del Gran Chaco landscape. Anim Conserv 15(5):527–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2012.00545.x
Noss A, Polisar J, Maffei L, Garcia R, Silver S (2013) Evaluating jaguar densities with camera traps
Penido G, Astete S, Furtado MM, Jácomo AT, de Sollmann A, Torres R, Silveira N, Filho LM, Penido J, Astete G, Furtado S, Jácomo MM, de Sollmann AT, Torres R, Silveira NL, J Marinho Filho (2016) Density of ocelots in a semiarid environment in northeastern Brazil. Biota Neotrop. https://doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2016-0168
Pérez-Irineo G, Santos-Moreno A (2014) Density, distribution, and activity of the ocelot Leopardus pardalis (Carnivora: Felidae) in Southeast Mexican rainforests. Rev de Biol Trop 62(4):1421–1432. https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v62i4.12941
Ramsey DSL, Caley PA, Robley A (2015) Estimating population density from presence-absence data using a spatially explicit model. J Wildl Manag 79(3):491–499. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.851
Rich LN, Miller DAW, Muñoz DJ, Robinson HS, McNutt JW, Kelly MJ (2019) Sampling design and analytical advances allow for simultaneous density estimation of seven sympatric carnivore species from camera trap data. Biol Conserv 233:12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.02.018
Rowcliffe JM (2019) activity: animal Activity Statistics (1.3). https://cran.r-project.org/package=activity
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(4):1228–1236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01473.x
Rowcliffe JM, Carbone C, Jansen PA, Kays R, Kranstauber B (2011) Quantifying the sensitivity of camera traps: an adapted distance sampling approach. Methods Ecol Evol 2(5):464–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00094.x
Rowcliffe JM, Kays R, Carbone C, Jansen PA (2013) Clarifying assumptions behind the estimation of animal density from camera trap rates. J Wildl Manag 77(5):876. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.533
Rowcliffe JM, Kays R, Kranstauber B, Carbone C, Jansen PA (2014) Quantifying levels of animal activity using camera trap data. Methods Ecol Evol 5(11):1170–1179. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12278
Rowcliffe JM, Jansen PA, Kays R, Kranstauber B, Carbone C (2016) Wildlife speed cameras: measuring animal travel speed and day range using camera traps. Remote Sens Ecol Conserv 2(2):84–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.17
Salom-Pérez R (2005) Ecologia del Jaguar (Panthera onca) y del Manigordo (Leopardus pardalis) (Carnivora:Felidae) en el Parque Nacional Corcovado, Costa Rica [Universidad de Costa Rica]. moz-extension://25fe96d6-e4ba-4297-abdd-740e10f9b725/enhanced-reader.html?openApp&pdf = http%3A%2F%2Frepositorio.sibdi.ucr.ac.cr%3A8080%2Fjspui%2Fbitstream%2F123456789%2F5583%2F1%2F26235.pdf
Salom-Pérez R, Carrillo E, Sáenz JC, Mora JM (2007) Critical condition of the jaguar Panthera onca population in Corcovado National Park, Costa Rica. Oryx 41(01):51. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605307001615
Sánchez-Azofeifa G, Daily G (2003) Integrity and isolation of Costa Rica’s national parks and biological reserves: examining the dynamics of land-cover change.Biological Conservation. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320702001453
Satter CB, Augustine BC, Harmsen BJ, Foster RJ, Sanchez EE, Wultsch C, Davis ML, Kelly MJ (2019) Long-term monitoring of ocelot densities in Belize. J Wildl Manag 83(2):283–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21598
Soto-Fournier S (2014) Diversidad genética y estructura poblacional de Panthera onca y Puma concolor (Carnivora. Felidae) en Costa Rica. Universidad de Costa Rica
Tavares-de-Almeida R (2003) Ecología y conservación de felinos silvestres en el área de influencia del Parque Nacional Corcovado, Costa Rica [Universidad Nacional]. http://www.sidalc.net/cgi-bin/wxis.exe/?IsisScript=oet.xis&method=post&formato=2&cantidad=1&expresion=mfn=026681
Vargas Soto JS, Beirne C, Whitworth A, Cruz Diaz JC, Flatt E, Pillco-Huarcaya R, Olson ER, Azofeifa A, Salom-Pérez Saborío-RG, Espinoza-Muñoz R, Hay D, Whittaker L, Roldan L, Bedoya-Arrieta C, Broadbent R, Molnár EN, Pillco-Huarcaya PK, Olson R, Molnár ER (2021) Human disturbance and shifts in vertebrate community composition in a biodiversity hotspot. Conserv Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13813
Whitworth A, Beirne C, Flatt E, Pillco-Huarcaya R, Diaz C, Forsyth JC, Molnár A, Soto V (2018) Secondary forest is utilized by Great Curassows (Crax rubra) and great Tinamous (Tinamus major) in the absence of hunting. Condor 120(4):852–862. https://doi.org/10.1650/CONDOR-18-57.1
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the members of the Osa Camera Trap Network, through which we obtained data for the 2018 survey. We would also like to thank Osa Conservation volunteers, interns and staff who participated in fieldwork for all three camera trap grids.
Funding
P.K.M. is grateful for support from an NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Discovery Grant, CFI (Canada Foundation for Innovation) John R. Evans Leader Funds, MRIS Ontario Research Funds, a Connaught Foundation New Researcher Award, and University of Toronto Scarborough Research Competitiveness Funds. A.W. and E.F. are thankful for the support of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Bobolink Foundation, the Mazar Charitable Foundation Fund, and to the International Conservation Fund of Canada for their support of conservation work and science in the Osa. R.S.P. and D.E. would like to thank Michael Cline for the critical funding support provided.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
JSVS, PKM, and AW conceived the ideas and designed methodology; JSVS, EF, RSP, DEM collected the data; JSVS analysed the data; JSVS and PKM led the writing of the manuscript. All authors contributed critically to the drafts and gave final approval for publication.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Communicated by Grzegorz Mikusinski.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Vargas Soto, J.S., Flatt, E.J., Whitworth, A. et al. More than one way to count a cat: estimation of ocelot population density using frameworks for marked and unmarked species. Biodivers Conserv 32, 1821–1838 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-023-02579-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-023-02579-x