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.

Romani, T., Giannone, C., Mori, E., Filacorda, S. (2018). Use of track counts and camera traps to estimate the abundance of roe deer in North-Eastern Italy: are they effective methods?. MAMMAL RESEARCH, 63(4), 477-484 [10.1007/s13364-018-0386-9].

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

Mori, Emiliano;
2018-01-01

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.
2018
Romani, T., Giannone, C., Mori, E., Filacorda, S. (2018). Use of track counts and camera traps to estimate the abundance of roe deer in North-Eastern Italy: are they effective methods?. MAMMAL RESEARCH, 63(4), 477-484 [10.1007/s13364-018-0386-9].
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Use of track counts and camera traps.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: PDF editoriale
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 773.97 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
773.97 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11365/1062630