USGS Science⌕ Search

Geology topics

C. Schonewald

Publications and source records attributed to C. Schonewald.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS1998

Study design and interpretation of mammalian carnivore density estimates

Ecological theory and wildlife management often depend on reliable comparison and interpretation of population density estimates. A synthesis of 1,772 mammalian carnivore population estimates (713 unique to reference, species, site, and size of study area) from 74 species revealed global patterns among aspects of study and interpretive design that undermine the reliability and usefulness of density comparisons. The spatial extent of the study area could explain most of the variation in density, probably because study areas are typically delineated around population clusters. We related the scale-defined density estimates (regression residuals) to 28 other variables measured from the published literature, but none provided convincing biological explanation of the variation in density. Many aspects of study and interpretive design were possibly ill-suited to identifying the factor(s) influencing density. Study attributes and findings were reported inconsistently, and were subject to ideological motivations. Descriptions of vegetation were most difficult to relate to density. More intensive sampling and estimation methods produced above-average density estimates, but the differences were slight and the evidence lacking for concluding whether these more intensive methods were also more accurate. The first underlying factor extracted from principle-components analysis described the growing recognition of population declines and range reductions among large-bodied carnivores, which has also influenced study design. Another factor described an increasing trend for density to be compared and extrapolated to larger areas, but without adjusting for the effect of scale. To understand the factors influencing carnivore distribution and abundance, sampling and reporting methods (e.g., site description with maps) will need to represent the available pool of species, locations, and ecological conditions at larger-than-conventional spatial and temporal scales.

Oecologia↗
USGS1996

Scaling population density and spatial pattern for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores

A large part of ecological theory has been developed with the assumption that intra- and inter-specific patterns of density and spatial distribution can be consistently and reliably compared, and that these patterns have represented populations across nonstudied landscapes. These assumptions are erroneous. We found that log 10 population density estimates consistently decreased linearly with log 10 spatial extent of study areas for species of terrestrial Carnivora. The size of the study area accounted for most of the variation in population estimates, and study areas increased with the female body mass of the study species. But study sites consistently had higher densities than can be expected for nonstudy sites, regardless of the size of the study area, because study sites are typically chosen based on a priori knowledge of high density. Inter-specific comparisons of density and distribution might provide more insight into community organization after intra-specific density estimates have been scaled by the study areas, and related to the nonstudied landscapes within each species' geographic range.

Oecologia↗
USGS1996

Spatial scaling of allometry among terrestrial, mammalian carnivores

A regression slope of −0.75 between log 10 density and log 10 body mass is thought to express equivalence of energy conversion among species' populations of similar taxonomic and trophic status. Using larger sample sizes than the usual 1–3 density estimates per species, we estimated a regression slope of −0.71 for terrestrial mammalian carnivores. We investigated the sampling variation in this estimate, and those derived from smaller intra-specific subsets, using 1000-iteration bootstrap analyses to obtain 90% confidence intervals. As expected, these widened as random subsets were reduced in size, but always contained the postulated −0.75. However, log 10 density also declined as 3/4 of the log 10 spatial extent of study area, and study area accounted for virtually all of the variation in density that was previously thought due to body mass. We removed the effect of study area by using the species-specific regression models between density and study area to predict density at a common scale of 400 km 2 . These common-scale densities regressed against body mass with a slope of −0.16, but separated into body mass classes less than and greater than 11 kg, they produced slopes that were not significantly different from zero. We show that the allometry of density could be a case of circular logic, whereby body mass has influenced the investigator's choice of study area, and the resulting scale-dependent densities are related back to body mass. To test the allometry hypothesis, the effect of study area on density estimates needs to be removed. This requires conducting larger-scale studies of the smaller-bodied species so that all species compared are represented by an average study area that is near the common scale. Furthermore, study sites need to be selected and designed to represent more than the local detail in species' density.

Oecologia↗