Scott M. Mccorquodale | USGS Science

USGS2013

A hybrid double-observer sightability model for aerial surveys

Raw counts from aerial surveys make no correction for undetected animals and provide no estimate of precision with which to judge the utility of the counts. Sightability modeling and double-observer (DO) modeling are 2 commonly used approaches to account for detection bias and to estimate precision in aerial surveys. We developed a hybrid DO sightability model (model M H ) that uses the strength of each approach to overcome the weakness in the other, for aerial surveys of elk (Cervus elaphus). The hybrid approach uses detection patterns of 2 independent observer pairs in a helicopter and telemetry-based detections of collared elk groups. Candidate M H models reflected hypotheses about effects of recorded covariates and unmodeled heterogeneity on the separate front-seat observer pair and back-seat observer pair detection probabilities. Group size and concealing vegetation cover strongly influenced detection probabilities. The pilot's previous experience participating in aerial surveys influenced detection by the front pair of observers if the elk group was on the pilot's side of the helicopter flight path. In 9 surveys in Mount Rainier National Park, the raw number of elk counted was approximately 80–93% of the abundance estimated by model M H . Uncorrected ratios of bulls per 100 cows generally were low compared to estimates adjusted for detection bias, but ratios of calves per 100 cows were comparable whether based on raw survey counts or adjusted estimates. The hybrid method was an improvement over commonly used alternatives, with improved precision compared to sightability modeling and reduced bias compared to DO modeling.

Washington↗

USGS2010

Revisions of rump fat and body scoring indices for deer, elk, and moose

Because they do not require sacrificing animals, body condition scores (BCS), thickness of rump fat (MAXFAT), and other similar predictors of body fat have advanced estimating nutritional condition of ungulates and their use has proliferated in North America in the last decade. However, initial testing of these predictors was too limited to assess their reliability among diverse habitats, ecotypes, subspecies, and populations across the continent. With data collected from mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ), elk ( Cervus elaphus ), and moose ( Alces alces ) during initial model development and data collected subsequently from free-ranging mule deer and elk herds across much of the western United States, we evaluated reliability across a broader range of conditions than were initially available. First, to more rigorously test reliability of the MAXFAT index, we evaluated its robustness across the 3 species, using an allometric scaling function to adjust for differences in animal size. We then evaluated MAXFAT, rump body condition score (rBCS), rLIVINDEX (an arithmetic combination of MAXFAT and rBCS), and our new allometrically scaled rump-fat thickness index using data from 815 free-ranging female Roosevelt and Rocky Mountain elk ( C. e. roosevelti and C. e. nelsoni ) from 19 populations encompassing 4 geographic regions and 250 free-ranging female mule deer from 7 populations and 2 regions. We tested for effects of subspecies, geographic region, and captive versus free-ranging existence. Rump-fat thickness, when scaled allometrically with body mass, was related to ingesta-free body fat over a 38–522-kg range of body mass ( r 2 = 0.87; P < 0.001), indicating the technique is remarkably robust among at least the 3 cervid species of our analysis. However, we found an underscoring bias with the rBCS for elk that had >12% body fat. This bias translated into a difference between subspecies, because Rocky Mountain elk tended to be fatter than Roosevelt elk in our sample. Effects of observer error with the rBCS also existed for mule deer with moderate to high levels of body fat, and deer body size significantly affected accuracy of the MAXFAT predictor. Our analyses confirm robustness of the rump-fat index for these 3 species but highlight the potential for bias due to differences in body size and to observer error with BCS scoring. We present alternative LIVINDEX equations where potential bias from rBCS and bias due to body size are eliminated or reduced. These modifications improve the accuracy of estimating body fat for projects intended to monitor nutritional status of herds or to evaluate nutrition's influence on population demographics.

Journal of Wildlife Diseases↗