2017
DOI: 10.1590/1678-4766e2017041
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: ABSTRACT. Demographic information is the basis for evaluating and planning conservation strategies for an endangered species. However, in numerous situations there are methodological or financial limitations to obtain such information for some species. The marsh deer, an endangered Neotropical cervid, is a challenging species to obtain biological information. To help achieve such aims, the study evaluated the applicability of camera traps to obtain demographic information on the marsh deer compared to the trad… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
(67 reference statements)
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In some cases, both tools are jointly used to generate complementary data or for comparison of methods (Maffei et al 2004, Soisalo and Cavalcanti 2006, Dillon and Kelly 2008). Researchers have used camera traps to conduct home‐range estimates for wild species when recognition of individual animals is possible based on the distinctive pelage patterns or antler configuration (e.g., jaguars [ Panthera onca ] and ocelots [ Leopardus pardalis ], spotted pacas [ Cuniculus paca ], and marsh deer [ Blastocerus dichotomus ]; Tomas and Miranda 2003, Maffei et al 2004, Goulart et al 2009, Peres et al 2017). Brocket deer do not have such patterns, but natural markings present in some individuals (such as cuts, scars, and other marks) could be used instead with limited success.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In some cases, both tools are jointly used to generate complementary data or for comparison of methods (Maffei et al 2004, Soisalo and Cavalcanti 2006, Dillon and Kelly 2008). Researchers have used camera traps to conduct home‐range estimates for wild species when recognition of individual animals is possible based on the distinctive pelage patterns or antler configuration (e.g., jaguars [ Panthera onca ] and ocelots [ Leopardus pardalis ], spotted pacas [ Cuniculus paca ], and marsh deer [ Blastocerus dichotomus ]; Tomas and Miranda 2003, Maffei et al 2004, Goulart et al 2009, Peres et al 2017). Brocket deer do not have such patterns, but natural markings present in some individuals (such as cuts, scars, and other marks) could be used instead with limited success.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Camera traps and biotelemetry are 2 important tools for ecological data collection of free-ranging animals. In some cases, both tools are jointly used to generate complementary data or for comparison of methods (Maffei et al 2004, Soisalo and Cavalcanti 2006, Dillon and Kelly 2008 Maffei et al 2004, Goulart et al 2009, Peres et al 2017). Brocket deer do not have such patterns, but natural markings present in some individuals (such as cuts, scars, and other marks) could be used instead with limited success.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using multicamera traps per camera-site is recommended to improve species detectability, particularly for rare and/or small species (Pease et al 2016;O'Connor et al 2017). However, in practice, this approach is not always possible due to topographic features and logistical constraints (Alonso et al 2015;Peres et al 2017). Hence, to minimize the bias that could arise from using single cameras and shorter sampling durations, we used attractants (Webster and Beasley 2019).…”
Section: Data Collectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Marsh deer densities have been estimated in various types of open habitats, including the Pantanal of Brazil and the Iberá marshes of Argentina (Beccaceci, 1994; Mauro et al, 1995; Mourão et al, 2000; Tomas et al, 2001; Ávila, 2017), open, wet savannahs in Bolivia (Ayala-Crespo, 2010; Ríos-Uzeda & Mourão, 2012), the floodplains of the Paraná River (Mourão & Campos, 1995; Pinder, 1996; Andriolo et al, 2005, 2013; Tiepolo et al, 2010; Pereira, 2016) and other small wetlands (Peres et al, 2017). Estimated densities are 0.1–6.8 individuals per km 2 (Table 1).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%