Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Abundance, Density and Relative Abundance: A Conceptual Framework

  • Chapter
Camera Traps in Animal Ecology

Abstract

In the early 1990s, biologists began experimenting with camera traps to estimate the abundance of tigers Panthera tigra in the Nagarahole National Park (Karanth 1995), marking the first time that camera traps were used to sample a wildlife population in a statistically rigorous manner. Since that time, camera traps have been employed for a wide variety of uses in behavioral and ecological studies. Camera trap studies can result in capture histories of species whose members are individually recognizable via distinct natural traits or artificial markings (e.g. radio collars, tags) as well as capture histories of species that are not reliably identified as individuals. In either case, dependent on study objectives, each type of data may be used to estimate population size, species richness, site occupancy or relative abundance indices. In addition, well-designed camera trap studies usually include data on covariates at the sites where the cameras are set. Ideally, covariates are chosen based on their purported influence on abundance or other parameters of interest, including detectability (White 2005). The challenge to biologists is to use these data to the greatest extent possible, to make unbiased inferences about the state of the target wildlife population under investigation.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderson, D. R. 2001. The need to get the basics right in wildlife field studies. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:1294–1297

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, D. R. 2003. Response to Engeman: index values rarely constitute reliable information. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:288–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, L. L., T. R. Simons, and K. H. Pollock. 2004a. Estimating detection probability parameters fro plethodon salamanders using the robust capture-recapture design. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, L. L., T. R. Simons, and K. H. Pollock. 2004b. Spatial and temporal variation in detection probability of plethodon salamanders using the robust capture-recapture design. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:14–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balme, G. A., L. T. B. Hunter, and R. Slowtow. 2009. Evaluating methods for counting cryptic carnivores. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:433–441

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, W. F. 1940. Home ranges and populations of the meadow vole in southern Michigan. Journal of Wildlife Management 4:149–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borchers, D. L. and M. G. Efford. 2008. Spatially explicit maximum likelihood methods for capture–recapture studies. Biometrics 64(2):377–385

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brownie, C., J. R. Hines, and J. D. Nichols. 1986. Constant-parameter capture–recapture models. Biometrics 42:561–574

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Buckland, S. T., K. P. Burnham, and N. H. Augustin. 1997. Model selection: an integral part of inference. Biometrics 53:603–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham, K. P. and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multimodal inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, Second edition. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnham, K. P., D. R. Anderson, G. C. White, C. Brownie, and K. H. Pollock. 1987. Design and analysis methods for fish survival experiments based on release-recapture. American Fishery Society Monograph 5:1–437

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, W. H. 1943. Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 24:346–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbone, C., S. Christie, K. Conforti, T. Coulson, N. Franklin, J. R. Ginsberg, M. Griffiths, J. Holden, K. Kawanishi, M. Kinnaird, R. Laidlaw, A. Lynam, D. W. MacDonald, D. Martyr, C. McDougal, L. Nath, T. O’Brien, J. Seidensticker, D. Smith, M. Sunquist, R. Tilson, and W. N. Wan Shahruddin. 2001. The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals. Animal Conservation 4:75–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbone, C., S. Christie, K. Conforti, T. Coulson, N. Franklin, J. R. Ginsberg, M. Griffiths, J. Holden, K. Kawanishi, M. Kinnaird, R. Laidlaw, A. Lynam, D. W. MacDonald, D. Martyr, C. McDougal, L. Nath, T. O’Brien, J. Seidensticker, D. Smith, M. Sunquist, R. Tilson, and W. N. Wan Shahruddin. 2002. The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of cryptic mammals: response to Jennelle et al. Animal Conservation 5:121–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caughley, G. 1977. Analysis of vertebrate populations. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Chao, A. and R. M. Huggins. 2005a. Classical closed-populations capture–recapture models. Pages 22–35 in S. C. Amstrup, T. L. McDonald, and B. F. J. Manly, editors. Handbook of capture–recapture analysis. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Chao, A. and R. M. Huggins. 2005b. Modern closed-populations capture-recapture models. Pages 58–87 in S. C. Amstrup, T. L. McDonald, and B. F. J. Manly, editors. Handbook of capture–recapture analysis. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, W. G. 1997. Sampling techniques. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Conn, P. B., L. L. Bailey, and J. R. Sauer. 2004. Indexes as surrogates to abundance for low-abundance species. Pages 59–74 in W. L. Thompson, editor. Sampling rare or elusive species. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Conroy, M. J. 1996. Abundance indices. Pages 179–192 in D. E. Wilson, F. R. Cole, J. D. Nichols, R. Rudran, and M. S. Foster, editors. Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooch, E. and G. White, editors. 2006. Program MARK: a gentle introduction. Fifth edition. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, http://www.phidot.org/software/mark/docs/book/

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosbie, S. F. and B. F. J. Manly. 1985. Parsimonious modeling of capture–mark–recapture studies. Biometrics 41:385–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darroch, J. N. 1959. The multiple-recapture census: II. Estimation when there is no immigration or death. Biometrika 46:343–359

    Google Scholar 

  • Dice, L. R. 1938. Some census methods for mammals. Journal of Wildlife Management 2:119–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodd, K. C. and R. M. Dorazio. 2004. Using counts to simultaneously estimate abundance and detection probabilities in a salamander community. Herpetologica 60:468–478

    Google Scholar 

  • Efford, M. 2004. Density estimation in live-trapping studies. Oikos 106:598–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efford, M. G., D. K. Dawson, and C. S. Robbins. 2004. DENSITY: software for analyzing capture-recapture data from passive detector arrays. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 27:217–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Efford, M. G., B. Warburton, M. C. Coleman, and R. J. Barker. 2005. A field test of two methods for density estimation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:731–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efron, B. and R. Tibshirani. 1986. Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy. Statistical Science 1:54–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeman, R. M. 2003. More on the need to the basics right: population indices. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:286–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, J. P. 2000. Monitoring populations. Pages 213–247 in L. Boitani and T. Fuller, editors. Research techniques in animal ecology: controversies and consequences. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayne, D. W. 1949. Calculations of home range size. Journal of Mammalogy 30:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holdenried, R. 1940. A population study of the long-eared chipmunk (Eutamias quadrimaculatus) in the central Sierra Nevada. Journal of Mammalogy 21:405–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennelle, C. S., M. C. Runge, and D. I. Mackenzie. 2002. The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals: a comment on misleading conclusions. Animal Conservation 5:119–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jett, D. and J. D. Nichols. 1987. A field comparison of nested grid and trapping web density estimators. Journal of Mammalogy 68:888–892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolly, G. M. 1965. Explicit estimates from capture-recapture data with both death and immigration – stochastic model. Biometrika 52:225–247

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Karanth, K. U. 1995. Estimating tiger Panthera tigris populations from camera trap data using capture-recapture models. Biological Conservation 71:333–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karanth, K. U. and J. D. Nichols. 2000. Ecological status and conservation of tigers in India. Final technical report to the Division of International Conservation, US Fish and Wildlife Service and Wildlife Conservation Society, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Karanth, K. U. and J. D. Nichols, editors. 2002. Monitoring tigers and their prey: a manual for researchers, managers, and conservationists in tropical Asia. Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, India, 193 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Karanth, K. U., J. D. Nichols, N. S. Kumar, W. A. Link, and J. E. Hines. 2004. Tigers and their prey: predicting carnivore densities from prey abundance. Proceedings National Academy of Sciences USA 101:4854–4858

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Karanth, K. U., J. D. Nichols, N. S. Kumar, and J. E. Hines. 2006. Assessing tiger population dynamics using photographic capture–recapture sampling. Ecology 87:2925–2937

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, W. L. 1999. Robustness of closed capture-recapture methods to violations of the closure assumption. Ecology 80:2517–2525

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, W. L. and J. D. Nichols. 1995. On the use of secondary capture–recapture samples to estimate temporary emigration and breeding proportions. Journal of Applied Statistics 22:751–762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, W. L., K. H. Pollock, and C. Brownie. 1995. A likelihood-based approach to capture-recapture estimation of demographic parameters under the robust design. Biometrics 51:293–308

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, W. L., J. D. Nichols, and J. E. Hines. 1997. Estimating temporary emigration using capture–recapture data with Pollock’s robust design. Ecology 78:563–578

    Google Scholar 

  • Kéry, M., J. A. Royle, and H. Schmid. 2005. Modeling avian abundance from replicated counts using binomial mixture models. Ecological Applications 15:1450–1461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaPlace, M. 1786. Sur les naissances, les marriages et les mortes. Histoire de l’Acad´emie Royale des Sciences, Ann´ee 1783:693–702

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, F. C. 1930. Calculating waterfowl abundance on the basis of banding returns. U.S. Dept. Agric. Circ. No. 118:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, W. A. and J. R. Sauer. 1997. Estimation of population trajectories from count data. Biometrics 53:63–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, W. A. and J. R. Sauer. 1998. Estimation of population change from count data: application to the North American Breeding Bird Survey. Ecological Applications 8:258–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, W. A. and J. R. Sauer. 2002. A hierarchical analysis of population change with application to Cerulean warblers. Ecology 83:2832–2840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D. I. and W. L. Kendall. 2002. How should detection probability be incorporated into estimates of relative abundance? Ecology 83:2387–2393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D. I., J. D. Nichols, J. A. Royle, K. H. Pollock, L. L. Bailey, and J. E. Hines. 2006. Occupancy estimation and modeling: inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence. Academic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, K. S. and D. E. Pearson. 2001. Population estimation with sparse data: the role of estimators versus indices revisited. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1754–1765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, C. O. 1947. Table of equivalent populations of North American small mammals. American Midland Naturalist 37:223–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, J. D. and K. H. Pollock. 1983. Estimation methodology in contemporary small mammal capture–recapture studies. Journal of Mammalogy 4:253–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, J. L. and K. H. Pollock, 1996. Nonparametric MLE under two closed-capture models with heterogeneity. Biometrics 59:639–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, T. G., M. F. Kinnaird, and H. T. Wibisono. 2003. Crouching tigers, hidden prey: Sumatran tiger and prey populations in a tropical forest landscape. Animal Conservation 6:131–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otis, D. L., K. P Burnham, G. C.White, and D. R. Anderson. 1978. Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife Monographs 62:1–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Parmenter, R. R., T. L. Yates, D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, J. L. Dunnum, A. B. Franklin, M. T. Friggins, B. C. Lubow, M. Miller, G. S. Olson, C. A. Parmenter, J. Pollard, E. Rexstad, T. M. Shenk, T. R. Stanley, and G. C. White. 2003. Small-mammal density estimation: a field comparison of grid-based vs. web-based density estimators. Ecological Monographs 73:1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, C. G. J. 1896. The yearly immigration of young plaice into the Limfjord from the German Sea. Danish Biological Station Report 6:1–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Pledger, S. 2000. Unified maximum likelihood estimates for closed capture–recapture populations using mixtures. Biometrics 56:434–442

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pledger, S. and M. Efford. 1998. Correction of bias due to heterogeneous capture probability in capture–recapture studies of open populations. Biometrics 54:888–898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, K. H. 1982. A capture–recapture design robust to unequality of capture. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:757–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, K. H., J. E. Hines, and J. D. Nichols. 1985. Goodness-of-fit tests for open capture-recapture models. Biometrics 41:399–410

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, K. H., J. D. Nichols, C. Brownie, and J. E. Hines. 1990. Statistical inference for capture-recapture experiments. Wildlife Monograph 107:1–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, K. H., J. D. Nichols, T. R. Simons, G. L. Farnsworth, L. L. Bailey, and J. R. Sauer. 2002. Large scale wildlife monitoring studies: statistical methods for design and analysis. Environmetrics 13:105–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pradel, R. 1996. Utilization of capture–mark–recapture for the study of recruitment and population growth rate. Biometrics 52:703–709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royle, J. A. 2004. N-mixture models for estimating population size from spatially replicated counts. Biometrics 60:108–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Royle, J. A. and J. D. Nichols, 2003. Estimating abundance from repeated presence absence data or point counts. Ecology 84:777–790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royle J. A., J. D. Nichols, K. U. Karanth, and A. M. Gopalaswamy. 2009. A hierarchical model for estimating densities in camera-trap studies. Journal of Applied Ecology 46:118–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. J. and A. N. Arnason. 1996. A general methodology for the analysis of capture–recapture experiments in open populations. Biometrics 52:860–873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. J. and W. T. Stobo. 1997. Estimating temporary migration using the robust design. Biometrics 53:178–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Seber, G. A. F. 1965. A note on the multiple-recapture census. Biometrika 52:249–259

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Seber, G. A. F. 1982. The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters. Second edition. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Silver, S. C., L. E. T. Ostro, L. K. Marsh, L. Maffei, A. J. Noss, M. J. Kelly, R. B. Wallace, H. Gómez, and G. Ayala. 2004. The use of camera traps for estimating jaguar Panthera onca abundance and densityusing capture/recapture analysis. Oryx 38:148–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skalski, J. R. and D. S. Robson. 1992. Techniques for wildlife investigations. Academic, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. H., R. Blessing, J. G. Chelton, J. B. Gentry, F. B. Golley, and J. T. McGinnis. 1971. Determining density for small mammal populations using a grid and assessment lines. Acta Theriologica 16:105–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Soisalo, M. K. and S. M. C. Cavalcanti. 2006. Estimating the density of a jaguar population in the Brazilian Pantanal using camera-traps and capture–recapture sampling in combination with GPS radio-telemetry. Biological Conservation 129:487–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, T. R. and K. P. Burnham. 1998. Information-theoretic model selection and model averaging for closed-population capture–recapture studies. Biometrical Journal 40:475–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stickel, L. F. 1954. A comparison of certain methods of measuring ranges of small mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 35:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, S. K. 1992. Sampling. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegge, P., C. P. Pokheral, and S. R. Jnawali. 2004. Effects of trapping effort and trap shyness on estimates of tiger abundance from camera trap studies. Animal Conservation 7:251–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, G. C. 2005. Correcting wildlife counts using detection probabilities. Wildlife Research 32:211–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, G. C. and K. P. Burnham. 1999. Program MARK: survival rate estimation from both live and dead encounters. Bird Study 46(suppl.):S120–S139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B. K., J. D. Nichols, and M. J. Conroy. 2002. Analysis and management of animal populations. Academic, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, K. R. and D. R. Anderson. 1985. Evaluation of two density estimators of small mammal population size. Journal of Mammalogy 66:13–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. J., M. G. Efford, S. J. Brown, J. F. Williamson, and G. J. McElrea. 2007. Estimating density of ship rats in New Zealand forests by capture–mark–recapture trapping. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 31:47–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoccoz, N. G., J. D. Nichols, and T. Boulinier. 2001. Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time. Trends in Evolution and Ecology 16:446–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank K.U. Karanth, M.F. Kinnaird, J.D. Nichols, and A.F. O’Connell for many helpful comments that greatly improved the content and structure of the manuscript. I also thank The Wildlife Conservation Society and J. Ginsberg, E. McBean, A. Rabinowitz and J. Robinson for support during the preparation of this manuscript and, more importantly, for support of efforts to expand the application of camera trap methods in conservation biology.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wildlife Conservation Society, 2300 Southern Blvd, Bronx, NY, 10460, USA

    Timothy G. O’Brien

  2. Mpala Research Centre, 555, Nanyuki, Kenya

    Timothy G. O’Brien

Authors
  1. Timothy G. O’Brien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy G. O’Brien .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center–Beltsville Lab, U.S. Geological Survey, 10300 Baltimore Avenue, Beltsville, Maryland, 20705, USA

    Allan F. O’Connell Ph.D. (Research Wildlife Biologist) (Research Wildlife Biologist)

  2. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 12100 Beech Forest Road, Laurel, Maryland, 20708, USA

    James D. Nichols Ph.D. (Senior Scientist) (Senior Scientist)

  3. Centre for Wildlife Studies, Wildlife Conservation Society, 26-2, Aga Abbas Ali Road (Apt: 403), Bangalore, Karnataka, 560042, India

    K. Ullas Karanth Ph.D. (Senior Conservation Scientist) (Senior Conservation Scientist)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

O’Brien, T.G. (2011). Abundance, Density and Relative Abundance: A Conceptual Framework. In: O’Connell, A.F., Nichols, J.D., Karanth, K.U. (eds) Camera Traps in Animal Ecology. Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-99495-4_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation