Use of track counts and camera traps to estimate the abundance of roe deer in North-Eastern Italy: are they effective methods?

Abstract

Population density of European roe deer Capreolus capreolus was estimated in six forest areas of North-Eastern Italy through the use of different methods. The most effective method to estimate a population density is always case-dependent and, thus, varies across study areas. Particularly, drive count and vantage point count estimates (i.e. counts by hunters) have been reported to be the most effective to assess deer densities in woodlands, but they require a high volunteer human presence, which limit their feasibility. Results of count by hunters were thus compared with estimates obtained through camera trapping and track counts. Surveys were all carried out between 2014 and 2015. The three-used method provided us with comparable density results, suggesting that they all may be applied in the study area. Track-count survey was shown to be—with equal effectiveness—the cheapest method to infer roe deer density in forest areas (i.e. near 28% cheaper than camera trapping). As to our study sites, we therefore suggest that the proposal of track-count method might provide wildlife managers with a cost-effective alternative to other count methods to estimate roe deer population density. However, it is noteworthy that track-count method may also lead to lower density estimates than the drive counts; an apparent difference in the accuracy between methods needs to be considered when choosing for a certain count method.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Acevedo P, Ferreres J, Jaroso R, Duràn M, Escudero MA, Marco J, Gortàzar C (2010) Estimating roe deer abundance from pellet group counts in Spain: an assessment of methods suitable for Mediterranean woodlands. Ecol Indic 10:1226–1230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ancillotto L, Notomista T, Mori E, Bertolino S, Russo D (2018) Assessment of detection methods and vegetation associations for introduced Finlayson’s squirrels (Callosciurus finlaysonii) in Italy. Environ Manage 61:875–883

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Andersen R, Duncan P, Linnell JDC (1998) The European roe deer: the biology of success. Scandinavian University Editions, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  4. Anile S, Ragni B, Randi E, Mattucci F, Rovero F (2014) Wildcat population density on the Etna volcano, Italy: a comparison of density estimation methods. J Zool (Lond) 293:252–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Aulak W, Babińska-Werka J (1990) Estimation of roe deer density based on the abundance and rate of disappearance of their faeces from the forest. Acta Theriol 35:111–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Breed GA, Costa DP, Jonsen ID, Robinson PW, Mills-Flemming J (2012) State-space methods for more completely capturing behavioral dynamics from animal tracks. Ecol Model 235:49–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cagnacci F, Focardi S, Heurich M, Stache A, Hewison AJM, Morellet N, Kjellander N, Linnell JDC, Mysterud A, Neteler M, Delucchi L, Ossi F, Urbano F (2011) Partial migration in roe deer: migratory and resident tactics are end points of a behavioural gradient determined by ecological factors. Oikos 120:1790–1802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cagnacci F, Cardini A, Ciucci P, Ferrari N, Mortelliti A, Preatoni DG, Russo D, Scandura M, Wauters LA, Amori G (2012) Less is more: a researcher’s survival guide in time of economic crisis. Hystrix 23:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  9. Carbone C, Cowlishaw G, Isaac NJB, Rowcliffe JM (2005) How far do animals go? Determinants of day range in mammals. Am Nat 165:290–297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cetin M, Sevik H (2016) Evaluating the recreation potential of Ilgaz Mountain National Park in Turkey. Environ Monit Assess 188:52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chavel EE, Mazerolle MJ, Imbeau L, Drapeau P (2017) Comparative evaluation of three sampling methods to estimate detection probability of American red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus). Mamm Biol 83:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Corlatti L, Gugiatti A, Pedrotti L (2016) Spring spotlight counts provide reliable indices to track changes in population size of mountain-dwelling red deer Cervus elaphus. Wildl Biol 22:268–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Côté SD, Rooney TP, Tremblay J-P, Dussault C, Waller DM (2004) Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35(1):113–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Coulon A, Morellet N, Goulard M, Cargnelutti B, Angibault JM, Hewison AJM (2008) Inferring the effects of landscape structure on roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) movements using a step selection function. Landsc Ecol 23:603–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Daniels MJ (2006) Estimating roe deer Cervus elaphus populations: an analysis of variation and cost-effectiveness of counting methods. Mammal Rev 36:235–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. D'Eon RG (2001) Using snow-track surveys to determine deer winter distribution and habitat. Wildl Soc Bull 29:879–887

    Google Scholar 

  17. Elzinga CL, Salzer DW, Willoughby JW, Gibbs DP (2001) Monitoring plant and animal populations. Blackwell Scientific Publications Editions, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ferretti F, Bertoldi G, Sforzi A, Fattorini L (2011) Roe and fallow deer: are they compatible neighbours? Eur J Wildl Res 57:775–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Focardi S, Montanaro P, Isotti R, Ronchi F, Scacco M, Calmanti R (2005) Distance sampling effectively monitored a declining population of Italian roe deer Capreolus capreolus italicus. Oryx 39:421–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Formozov AN (1932) Formula for quantitative censusing of mammals by tracks. Russ J Zool 11:66–69 [in Russian]

    Google Scholar 

  21. Foster RJ, Hamsen BJ (2012) A critique of density estimation from camera-trap data. J Wildl Manag 76:224–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Garel M, Bonenfant C, Hamann J-L, Klein F, Gaillard J-M (2010) Are abundance indices derived from spotlight counts reliable to monitor red deer Cervus elaphus populations? Wildl Biol 16:77–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Horcajada-Sánchez F, Navarro-Castilla Á, Boadella M, Barja I (2018) Influence of livestock, habitat type, and density of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) on parasitic larvae abundance and infection seroprevalence in wild populations of roe deer from central Iberian peninsula. Mamm Res 63:213–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Iborra O, Lumaret JP (1997) Validity limits of the pellet group counts in wild rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus). Mammalia 61:205–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Keeping D (2014) Rapid assessment of wildlife abundance: estimating animal density with track counts using body mass–dayrange scaling rules. Anim Conserv 17:486–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Keeping D, Pelletier R (2014) Animal density and track counts: understanding the nature of observations based on animal movements. PLoS One 9:e96598

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kremen C, Merenlender AM, Murphy DD (1994) Ecological monitoring: a vital need for integrated conservation and development programs in the tropics. Conserv Biol 8:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Laurenzi A, Bodino N, Mori E (2016) Much ado about nothing: assessing the impact of a problematic rodent on agriculture and native trees. Mamm Res 61:65–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lovari S, Serrao G, Mori E (2017) Woodland features determining home range size of roe deer. Behav Process 140:115–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mandujano S (2005) Track count calibration to estimate density of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in Mexican dry tropical forest. Southwest Nat 50:223–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mandujano S, Gallina S (1995) Comparison of deer censusing methods in tropical dry forest. Wildl Soc Bull 23:180–186

    Google Scholar 

  32. Massei G, Bacon P, Genov PV (1998) Fallow deer and wild boar pellet group disappearance in a Mediterranean area. J Wildl Manag 62:1086–1094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Morellet N, Van Moorter B, Cargnelutti B, Angibault JM, Lourtet B, Merlet J, Ladet S, Hewison AJM (2011) Landscape composition influences roe deer habitat selection at both home range and landscape scales. Landsc Ecol 6:999–1010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mori E, Di Bari P, Coraglia M (2017) Interference between roe deer and northern chamois in the Italian Alps: are Facebook groups effective data sources? Ethol Ecol Evol 30:277–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/03949370.2017.1354922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mysterud A, Meisingset EL, Veiberg V, Langvatn R, Solberg EJ, Egil L, Stenseth NC (2007) Monitoring population size of red deer Cervus elaphus: an evaluation of two types of census data from Norway. Wildl Biol 13:285–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. O'Connell AF, Nichols JD, Karanth KU (2010) Camera traps in animal ecology: methods and analyses. Springer Science & Business Media, New York

    Google Scholar 

  37. Parsons AW, Forrester T, McShea WJ, Baker-Whatton MC, Millspaugh JJ, Kays R (2017) Do occupancy or detection rates from camera traps reflect deer density? J Mammal 98:1547–1557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Pęksa Ł, Ciach M (2015) Negative effects of mass tourism on high mountain fauna: the case of the Tatra chamois Rupicapra rupicapra tatrica. Oryx 49:500–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Pépin D, Adrados C, Mann C, Janeau G (2004) Assessing real daily distance traveled by ungulates using differential GPS locations. J Mammal 85:774–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Putman RJ (1986) Foraging by roe deer in agricultural areas and impact on arable crops. J Appl Ecol 23:91–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Putman R, Apollonio M, Andersen R (2011) Ungulate management in Europe: problems and practices. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  42. R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org. Accessed 22 May 2018

  43. Reynolds JH, Thompson WL, Russell B (2011) Planning for success: identifying effective and efficient survey designs for monitoring. Eur J Wildl Res 144:1278–1284

    Google Scholar 

  44. Roberts CW, Pierce BL, Braden AW, Lopez RR, Silvy NJ, Frank PA, Ransom D (2006) Comparison of camera and road survey estimates for white-tailed deer. J Wildl Manag 70:263–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Romani T (2016) Stima delle densità di ungulati attraverso l’uso di diverse tecniche in Friuli Venezia-Giulia. Tesi di Laurea Specialistica in Nutrizione e Risorse Animali, Univesità di Udine, Anno Accademico 2015–2016

  46. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Soper HE, Young AW, Cave BM, Lee A, Pearson K (1917) On the distribution of the correlation coefficient in small samples. Appendix II to the papers of “Student” and R. A. Fisher. A cooperative study. Biometrika 11:328–413

    Google Scholar 

  49. Stephens O, Zaumyslova Y, Miquelle DG, Myslenkov AI, Hayward GD (2006) Estimating population density from indirect sign: track counts and the Formozov–Malyshev–Pereleshin formula. Anim Conserv 9:339–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Thulin CG, Malmsten J, Ericsson G (2015) Opportunities and challenges with growing wildlife populations and zoonotic diseases in Sweden. Eur J Wildl Res 61:649–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Tobler MW, Powell GV (2013) Estimating jaguar densities with camera traps: problems with current designs and recommendations for future studies. Biol Conserv 159:109–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Villafañe-Trujillo ÁJ, López-González CA, Kolowski JM (2018) Throat patch variation in tayra (Eira barbara) and the potential for individual identification in the field. Diversity 10:7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ward AI, White PC, Critchley CH (2004) Roe deer Capreolus capreolus behaviour affects density estimates from distance sampling surveys. Mammal Rev 34:315–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Zaccaroni M, Dell’Agnello F, Ponti G, Riga F, Vescovini C, Fattorini L (2017) Vantage point counts and monitoring roe deer. J Wildl Manag 82:354–361. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21385

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Friuli Venezia-Giulia Region for sharing their data, Cristina Comuzzo and hunters from the SIPS (Società Italiana Pro-Segugio- www.enci.it) project for their support with camera trapping and Yannick Fanin for his support in Doberdò del Lago Reserve. We thank CyberTracker Conservation for the software. Part of this research was carried out within the project named “L’interazione tra gli ungulati, attività cinofilia, caccia con l’uso dei cani da seguita e grandi e meso carnivori” funded by the Società Italiana Pro-Segugio- www.enci.it.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

TR, CG and SF conceived the idea and collected all the data; EM helped in the paper organization and wrote part of it based on the data collected by other authors. Two anonymous reviewers kindly improved the first version of our manuscript with their comments.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carmelinda Giannone.

Additional information

Communicated by: Dries Kuijper

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Romani, T., Giannone, C., Mori, E. et al. Use of track counts and camera traps to estimate the abundance of roe deer in North-Eastern Italy: are they effective methods?. Mamm Res 63, 477–484 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13364-018-0386-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Capreolus capreolus
  • Drive counts
  • Vantage point counts
  • Camera trapping
  • Track counts
  • Economic costs