Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCrowther, Mathew S.
dc.contributor.authorDargan, Jessica R.
dc.contributor.authorMadani, George
dc.contributor.authorRus, Adrian I.
dc.contributor.authorKrockenberger, Mark B.
dc.contributor.authorMcArthur, Clare
dc.contributor.authorMoore, Ben D.
dc.contributor.authorLunne, Daniel
dc.contributor.authorMella, Valentina S. A.
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-21T03:10:56Z
dc.date.available2020-12-21T03:10:56Z
dc.date.issued2020en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2123/24150
dc.description.abstractContext. Precise and accurate estimates of animal numbers are often essential for population and epidemiological models, as well as for guidance for population management and conservation. This is particularly true for threatened species in landscapes facing multiple threats. Estimates can be derived by different methods, but the question remains as to whether these estimates are comparable. Aims. We compared three methods to estimate population numbers, namely, distance sampling, mark–recapture analysis, and home-range overlap analysis, for a population of the iconic threatened species, the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus). This population occupies a heavily fragmented forest and woodland habitat on the Liverpool Plains, northwestern New South Wales, Australia, on a mosaic of agricultural and mining lands. Key results. All three methods produced similar estimates, with overlapping confidence intervals. Distance sampling required less expertise and time and had less impact on animals, but also had less precision; however, future estimates using the method could be improved by increasing both the number and expertise of the observers. Conclusions. When less intrusive methods are preferred, or fewer specialised practitioners are available, we recommend distance sampling to obtain reliable estimates of koala numbers. Although its precision is lower with a low number of sightings, it does produce estimates of numbers similar to those from the other methods. However, combining multiple methods can be useful when other material (genetic, health and demographic) is also needed, or when decisions based on estimates are for high-profile threatened species requiring greater confidence. We recommend that all estimates of population numbers, and their precision or variation, be recorded and reported so that future studies can use them as prior information, increasing the precision of future surveys through Bayesian analyses.en_AU
dc.language.isoenen_AU
dc.publisherCSIRO Publishingen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofWildlife Researchen_AU
dc.rightsCopyright All Rights Reserveden_AU
dc.subjectdistance sampling, GPS-tracking, home-ranges, koala, mark–recapture, population estimation, threatened speciesen_AU
dc.titleComparison of three methods of estimating the population size of an arboreal mammal in a fragmented rural landscapeen_AU
dc.typeArticleen_AU
dc.subject.asrc0501 Ecological Applicationsen_AU
dc.identifier.doi10.1071/WR19148
dc.relation.arcLP140100279
usyd.facultySeS faculties schools::Faculty of Science::School of Life and Environmental Sciencesen_AU
workflow.metadata.onlyNoen_AU


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.