Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorCrunchant, Anne-Sophie
dc.contributor.authorBorchers, David
dc.contributor.authorKühl, Hjalmar
dc.contributor.authorPiel, Alex
dc.date.accessioned2021-02-25T00:35:54Z
dc.date.available2021-02-25T00:35:54Z
dc.date.issued2020-04
dc.identifier.citationCrunchant , A-S , Borchers , D , Kühl , H & Piel , A 2020 , ' Listening and watching : do camera traps or acoustic sensors more efficiently detect wild chimpanzees in an open habitat? ' , Methods in Ecology and Evolution , vol. 11 , no. 4 , pp. 542-552 . https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13362en
dc.identifier.issn2041-210X
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 266339954
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: c9527a80-46ba-4dae-8a9b-f9e64a92ee8d
dc.identifier.otherRIS: urn:545AA1F72BB875A8C3DCFF847209CD27
dc.identifier.otherWOS: 000515554100001
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0002-3944-0754/work/72842476
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85083622006
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/21503
dc.descriptionThis work was supported by the Primate Society of Great Britain through the Cyril Rosen Conservation Grant. Long term funding for ongoing research at Issa is supported by the UCSD/Salk Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny (CARTA).en
dc.description.abstract1.  With one million animal species at risk of extinction, there is an urgent need to regularly monitor threatened species. However, in practice this is challenging, especially with wide‐ranging, elusive and cryptic species or those that occur at low density. 2.  Here we compare two non‐invasive methods, passive acoustic monitoring (n=12) and camera trapping (n=53), to detect chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in a savanna‐woodland mosaic habitat at the Issa Valley, Tanzania. With occupancy modelling we evaluate the efficacy of each method, using the estimated number of sampling days needed to establish chimpanzee absence with 95% probability, as our measure of efficacy. 3.  Passive acoustic monitoring was more efficient than camera trapping in detecting wild chimpanzees. Detectability varied over seasons, likely due to social and ecological factors that influence party size and vocalisation rate. The acoustic method can infer chimpanzee absence with less than ten days of recordings in the field during the late dry season, the period of highest detectability, which was five times faster than the visual method. 4.  Synthesis and applications: Despite some technical limitations, we demonstrate that passive acoustic monitoring is a powerful tool for species monitoring. Its applicability in evaluating presence/absence, especially but not exclusively for loud call species, such as cetaceans, elephants, gibbons or chimpanzees provides a more efficient way of monitoring populations and inform conservation plans to mediate species‐loss.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofMethods in Ecology and Evolutionen
dc.rightsCopyright © 2020 British Ecological Society. This work has been made available online in accordance with publisher policies or with permission. Permission for further reuse of this content should be sought from the publisher or the rights holder. This is the author created accepted manuscript following peer review and may differ slightly from the final published version. The final published version of this work is available at https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13362en
dc.subjectChimpanzeeen
dc.subjectOccupancy modellingen
dc.subjectPassive acoustic monitoringen
dc.subjectSavanna-woodland mosaic habitaten
dc.subjectSeasonalityen
dc.subjectTanzaniaen
dc.subjectVideosen
dc.subjectVocalisationsen
dc.subjectQH301 Biologyen
dc.subjectDASen
dc.subject.lccQH301en
dc.titleListening and watching : do camera traps or acoustic sensors more efficiently detect wild chimpanzees in an open habitat?en
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.description.versionPostprinten
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. School of Mathematics and Statisticsen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Statisticsen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Scottish Oceans Instituteen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Centre for Research into Ecological & Environmental Modellingen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Marine Alliance for Science & Technology Scotlanden
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13362
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden
dc.date.embargoedUntil2021-02-25


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record