Skip to main content
WCS
Menu
Library
Library Catalog
eJournals & eBooks
WCS Research
Archives
Research Use
Finding Aids
Digital Collections
WCS History
WCS Research
Research Publications
Science Data
Services for WCS Researchers
Archives Shop
Bronx Zoo
Department of Tropical Research
Browse By Product
About Us
FAQs
Intern or Volunteer
Staff
Donate
Search WCS.org
Search
search
Popular Search Terms
WCS History
Library and Archives
Library and Archives Menu
Library
Archives
WCS Research
Archives Shop
About Us
Donate
en
fr
Title
How reliable are density estimates for diurnal primates?
Author(s)
Hassel-Finnegan H.M., Borries C., Larney E., Umponjan M., Koenig A.
Published
2008
Publisher
International Journal of Primatology
Published Version DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-008-9301-6
Abstract
Primate population assessments provide the basis for comparative studies and are necessary prerequisites in determining conservation status. The most widely used assessment method is line transect sampling, which generates systematic data quickly and comparatively inexpensively. In contrast, the presumably most reliable method is long-term monitoring of known groups, which is both slow and costly. To assess the reliability of various analytical methods, we compared group and population densities for white-handed gibbons (Hylobates lar carpenteri) and Phayre's leaf monkeys (Trachypithecus phayrei crepusculus) derived from transect walks with those from long-term group follows at Phu Khieo Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand. Our assistants and we regularly walked a 4-km transect over 30 mo (480 km total), resulting in 155 gibbon sightings and 125 leaf monkey sightings. We then estimated densities via 1) DISTANCE and 2) the Kelker method based on perpendicular distances (PD) or animal-to-observer distances (AOD). We compared the 3 estimates to values based on known home ranges (95% kernels), accounting for home range overlap, combined with group size data. Analyses of line transect data consistently overestimated group densities for both species, while underestimating group size for leaf monkeys. Quality of results varied according to the group size and spread of each species. However, we found, in accordance with previous studies, that values derived via AOD (or its derivations) matched most closely with population estimates based on home range data. © 2008 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
Keywords
biomonitoring; comparative study; conservation status; group size; home range; line transect; nature reserve; population density; population estimation; primate; species conservation; Asia; Chaiyaphum; Eurasia; Northeastern Region; Phu Khieo Wildlife Sanctuary; Southeast Asia; Thailand; Animalia; Haplorhini; Hylobates lar; Hylobatidae; Primates; Trachypithecus; Trachypithecus phayrei crepusculus
Access Full Text
A full-text copy of this article may be available. Please email the
WCS Library
to request.
Back
PUB11976