Geology topics

Karine Pigeon

Publications and source records attributed to Karine Pigeon.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2022

The occupancy-abundance relationship and sampling designs using occupancy to monitor populations of Asian bears

Designing a population monitoring program for Asian bears presents challenges associated with their low densities and detectability, generally large home ranges, and logistical or resource constraints. The use of an occupancy-based method to monitor bear populations can be appropriate under certain conditions given the mechanistic relationship between occupancy and abundance. The form of the occupancy–abundance relationship is dependent on species-specific characteristics such as home range size and population density, as well as study area size. To assess the statistical power of tests to detect population change of Asian bears, we conducted a study using a range of scenarios by simulating spatially explicit individual-based capture-recapture data from a demographically open model. Simulations assessed the power to detect changes in population density via changes in site-level occupancy or abundance through time, estimated using a standard occupancy model or a Royle-Nichols model, both with point detectors (representing camera traps). We used IUCN Red List criteria as a guide in selection of two population decline scenarios (20% and 50%), but we chose a shorter time horizon (10 years = 1 bear generation), meaning that declines were steeper than used for IUCN criteria (3 generations). Our simulations detected population declines of 50% with high power (>0.80) and low false positive rates (FPR: incorrectly detecting a decline) (<0.10) when detectors were spaced at > 0.67 times the home range diameter (home-range spacing ratio: HRSR, a measure of spatial correlation), such that bears would tend to overlap no more than two detectors. There was high (0.85) correlation between realized occupancy and N in these scenarios. The FPR increased as the HRSR decreased because of spatial correlation in the occupancy process induced when individual home ranges overlap multiple detectors. The mean statistical power to detect more gradual population declines (20% in 10 years) with HRSR > 0.67 was low for occupancy models 0.22 (maximum power 0.67) and Royle-Nichols models (0.24; maximum power 0.67), suggesting that declines of this magnitude may not be described reliably with 10 years of monitoring. Our results demonstrated that under many realistic scenarios that we explored, false positive rates were unacceptably high. We highlight that when designing occupancy studies, the spacing between point detectors be at least 0.67 times the diameter of the home range size of the larger sex (e.g., males) when the assumptions of the spatial capture-recapture model used for simulation are met.

Global Ecology and Conservation↗

USGS2022

Review of field methods for monitoring Asian bears

Efficient and effective monitoring methods are required to assess population status and gauge efficacy of conservation actions for threatened species. Here we review the spectrum of field methods useful for monitoring distribution, occupancy, abundance, and population trend for the five species of Asian terrestrial bears. Methods reviewed include expert opinion, local knowledge, bear sign, visual observations, camera traps, DNA-based methods (hair and scat derived), and radio telemetry. We examine the application of each method in terms of realizing specific monitoring objectives, their assumptions, challenges, and advantages. Our goal is to assist researchers in matching appropriate field methods with sought-after project objectives and to highlight shortfalls and trade-offs. Methods vary greatly in terms of cost, logistics, required number and expertise of staff, and the reliability of the data they provide. Many Asian bear population assessments have relied on expert opinion, local interviews, and sign surveys to provide estimates of distribution, abundance, and trend, in part because these are inexpensive and relatively easy to employ. However, increasing use of camera traps and DNA-based methods now allow for better monitoring via occupancy or rigorous capture–recapture population estimation, with the caveat that these methods may be restricted by inadequate budgets or logistical constraints. For distribution monitoring, camera traps and DNA yield the most definitive records of presence, but in low density bear populations, sign and local knowledge may be more effective. For occupancy, camera traps and DNA are advantageous in providing definitive detections in known time periods. For abundance/density or population trend monitoring in relatively small areas (<10,000 km 2 ), bears must be individually identified and used in a mark-recapture design. This requires DNA from collections of hair or scat, or a camera-based survey in which natural chest marks are clearly visible and individually distinguishable. DNA-methods or camera traps within individual identification is best for population trend when sufficient funding is available. Alternatively, careful use of local knowledge or expert opinion may be viable options, but come with greater uncertainty. For the foreseeable future, we believe that expert opinion will likely continue to play a large part in monitoring Asian bears, but these opinions should be informed by more rigorous data from the other methods we discuss.

Global Ecology and Conservation↗

USGS2022

The need to step-up monitoring of Asian bears

Many wildlife species are threatened in Asia, including the five species of terrestrial bears (Asiatic black, Ursus thibetanus ; brown, U. arctos ; sloth, Melursus ursinus ; sun, Helarctos malayanus ; giant panda, Ailuropoda melanoleuca ): many populations of these bears are thought to be declining or imperiled by small population size. Here our aim is to document how population assessments have been conducted for bears in Asia. We searched the literature and identified 102 studies published during 1999–2021 that investigated the status of an Asian bear population; these occurred in 24 of the 32 bear range countries in Asia. At the most basic level, 11% of studies verified presence of bears in places where they were not known to exist. The most common objective (53% of papers) was a distribution map, often derived from presence locations in a habitat-based model. Occupancy studies (15%) used temporal (time stamps on images from cameras) or spatial (transect segments) replicates, but tended to focus on “use”, so detector spacing was sometimes not appropriate for occupancy. Purported population indices, such as sign density or camera trap encounter rates, were reported in 16% of studies. One third of studies provided a population estimate, but only 10 studies in two decades used a rigorous method (e.g., mark–recapture). Sign surveys and interviews were the most common methods for determining bear presence, and local interviews were heavily relied upon for assessing population trend. Camera trapping has become increasingly prevalent, but only one study obtained a population estimate using photographs to distinguish natural individual markings. Only three studies used hair traps to obtain DNA-based population estimates, and three other studies obtained population estimates from DNA in scats. Just three studies quantitatively measured change in population size or occupancy over time, and none of these showed a decline. Unique rangewide sign surveys of giant pandas showed significant geographic expansion. The opinions of experts and local people, now heavily relied upon for population assessments, are not reliable or sensitive enough for monitoring. Quantitative population assessments are desirable to direct conservation actions toward the most perilous situations, and provide a means to gauge the effectiveness of conservation actions. This paper demonstrates the paucity of rigorous monitoring of Asian bears, and leads off a series of papers that propose improved methods for assessing distribution, occupancy, and density

Global Ecology and Conservation↗

USGS2020

Brown Bear (Ursus arctos; North America)

This chapter comprises the following sections: names, taxonomy, subspecies and distribution, descriptive notes, habitat, movements and home range, activity patterns, feeding ecology, reproduction and growth, behavior, parasites and diseases, status in the wild, and status in captivity.

Book chapter↗