Mamíferos de médio e grande porte de uma área agricultável em Terezópolis (GO) com notas sobre métodos de amostragem

Ribeiro, Paulo; Melo, Fabiano Rodrigues de

doi:10.4013/nbc.2013.82.02

Cited by 10 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This significant number is higher than that in other studies in the state, such as Campos and Lage (2010) with three endangered species and Bernardo and Melo (2013) with one endangered species; these results are similar to other studies such as Ribeiro and Melo (2013) and Silva (2012), both with five endangered species. However, this number may be underestimated, as discussed by Chiarello et al (2008), because of the lack of a state list of endangered species.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Footprints and camera trapping were demonstrated to be the most effective methods to detect mammals. Likewise, these methods were effective in Ribeiro and Melo (2013), Prado et al (2008) and Silva (2012). According to Silveira et al (2003), camera trapping is the most appropriate method for mammal inventory in all environmental conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…In Goiás, other studies had previously recorded 23 species from the Silvânia National Forest (Campos and Lage 2010) and 28 species in Emas National Park (Silveira et al 2003), both in conservation units. Outside of conservation units, 16 species were recorded in a study by Ribeiro and Melo (2013), 13 species were recorded by Bernardo and Melo (2013), and 19 species were recorded by Araújo et al (2015). Thus, the area inventoried exhibited the highest species richness of medium-and large-sized mammals outside conservation units in the state of Goiás.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Medium and large-sized mammals in a Cerrado area of the state of Goiás, Brazil

Estrela¹,

Souza²,

Souza³

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Brazilian mammal fauna is considered to be the richest of the Neotropical region. However, in several regions of the country, there are gaps in the knowledge of its mammal fauna. Thus, we conducted a survey of the medium and large-sized mammal species in the fragmented Cerrado region in the southeast area of the state of Goiás. Nonlinear transects were conducted in 28 sessions over 13 months using direct observation methods, indirect observation methods (scratches, footprints, feces and lairs) and camera trapping. Twenty-five species belonging to eight orders were recorded. The species richness estimated by the Jackknife 1 method was 24.89 (±1.61) species in the transects and 16.88 (±1.29) species in camera trap, with stabilization of the species accumulation curves. Among the recorded species, 5 were endangered at the national level, and three were globally endangered. The high species richness found in the area in addition to the presence of endangered species highlights the need for conservation measures for the study site.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Medium and large-sized mammals in a Cerrado area of the state of Goiás, Brazil

Estrela¹,

Souza²,

Souza³

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among the techniques developed for sampling and monitoring mammals, nowadays there is a tendency to apply non-invasive methods that avoid the need for animal handling and avoid directly perturbing them (Long et al, 2008). The use of camera traps, systematic surveys for detection of signs of presence (e.g., footprints, tracks, scats) and direct observations of animals (e.g., Eisenberg & Thorington, 1973;Emmons et al, 1989;Silveira et al, 2003;Srbek-Araújo & Chiarello, 2005;Lyra-Jorge et al, 2008a;Ribeiro & Melo, 2013) are among the most common non-invasive approaches to study mammals, especially for medium-and large-sized species (SrbekAraújo & Chiarello, 2005;Negrão & Valadares-Pádua, 2006;Tobler et al, 2008). Due to their greater usage, many studies have detailed the efficiencies of these approaches, testing different protocols to assess best use practices and field applicability (e.g., Silveira et al, 2003;Ribeiro & Melo, 2013;Srbek-Araújo & Chiarello, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another study carried out in the Pantanal (Brazil) obtained better results for detecting footprints of medium-to-largesized mammals with sand plots than with an artificial method involving two overlapping plastic sheets (Olifiers et al, 2011), but those authors suggested that the latter approach might be more efficient in the long term as animals became familiarized with the artificial structure in their landscape. Ribeiro & Melo (2013) also recommended sand plots to sample mammals in Central Brazil, describing the method as being cheap and efficient. However, the authors recognized that sand plots are time-consuming, physically demanding and climate-dependent, and do not allow species abundance quantification.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mammal inventories in Seasonal Neotropical Forests: traditional approaches still compensate drawbacks of modern technologies

Carvalho

Rosalino

Adania³

et al. 2016

Iheringia, Sér. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Variation in body size, behavior, feeding habits and habitat use patterns in medium-and large-sized mammals infl uence the adequacy of sampling methods to register presence and abundance. Moreover, even if methods are similarly adequate, diff erent methodologies result in distinct costeffi ciency relationships (i.e. some may have reduced costs, be less time-consuming and/or require less-skilled technicians). Focusing on three diff erent sampling methods commonly used to monitor medium and large mammals in seasonal tropical forests, we compared the species richness detected by each method and quantifi ed their cost-effi ciencies: (1) camera traps; (2) line transects for direct observations of animals; and (3) line transects seeking tracks/ footprints. We simultaneously monitored medium and large mammals along fi ve trails between July and August 2009 and January and February 2010, in the Serra do Japi Biological Reserve, São Paulo, Brazil. Data from two distinct seasons demonstrated that signifi cantly higher species richness was achieved by using signs of presence and direct observations detected in transects. Camera traps recorded the fewest species, but represented the lowest cost per species. Direct observations and searches for tracks/footprints required a greater number of fi eld technicians (with more skill and experience) to record the focal species and therefore have a higher cost, but allowed twice as many species to be recorded compared to camera traps. The choice of sampling methodology depends on the study objective, mammal species targeted and/or amount of resources available. We advocate use of camera traps for long-term studies and in conjunction with the other two methods to improve identifi cation accuracy, allow individual identifi cation and permit more accurate abundance estimates.KEYWORDS. Camera trap, direct observations, mammals, abundance estimates, animal tracks. RESUMO. Inventário de mamíferos em Floresta Neotropical Sazonal: abordagens tradicionais ainda compensam as desvantagens de tecnologias modernas.A variação no tamanho do corpo, comportamento, hábitos alimentares e padrões de uso de habitat em mamíferos de médio e grande porte infl uenciam a adequação de métodos de amostragem para o registro da presença e abundância. Além disso, mesmo se os métodos são igualmente adequados, diferentes metodologias resultam em distintas relações de custo-efi ciência (ou seja, alguns métodos podem ter custos reduzidos, ser menos demorados e/ou exigir técnicos menos qualifi cados). Concentrando-se em três diferentes métodos comumente usados para monitorar mamíferos de médio e grande porte em fl orestas tropicais sazonais, comparamos a riqueza de espécies detectada por cada método e quantifi camos seu custo-efi ciência: (1) armadilhas fotográfi cas; (2) observações diretas de animais em transectos; e (3) busca por rastros/pegadas em transectos. Nós monitoramos simultaneamente grandes e médios mamíferos ao longo de cinco trilhas entre julho e agosto de 2009 e janeiro e fevereiro de 2010, na ...

show abstract

Snap happy: camera traps are an effective sampling tool when compared with alternative methods

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Camera traps have become a ubiquitous tool in ecology and conservation. They are routinely deployed in wildlife survey and monitoring work, and are being advocated as a tool for planetary-scale biodiversity monitoring. The camera trap's widespread adoption is predicated on the assumption of its effectiveness, but the evidence base for this is lacking. Using 104 past studies, we recorded the qualitative overall recommendations made by study authors (for or against camera traps, or ambiguous), together with quantitative data on the effectiveness of camera traps (e.g. number of species detected or detection probabilities) relative to 22 other methods. Most studies recommended the use of camera traps overall and they were 39% more effective based on the quantitative data. They were significantly more effective compared with live traps (88%) and were otherwise comparable in effectiveness to other methods. Camera traps were significantly more effective than other methods at detecting a large number of species (31% more) and for generating detections of species (91% more). This makes camera traps particularly suitable for broad-spectrum biodiversity surveys. Film camera traps were found to be far less effective than digital models, which has led to an increase in camera trap effectiveness over time. There was also evidence from the authors that the use of attractants with camera traps reduced their effectiveness (counter to their intended effect), while the quantitative data indicated that camera traps were more effective in closed than open habitats. Camera traps are a highly effective wildlife survey tool and their performance will only improve with future technological advances. The images they produce also have a range of other benefits, for example as digital voucher specimens and as visual aids for outreach. The evidence-base supports the increasing use of camera traps and underlines their suitability for meeting the challenges of global-scale biodiversity monitoring.

show abstract

Mamíferos de médio e grande porte de uma área agricultável em Terezópolis (GO) com notas sobre métodos de amostragem

Cited by 10 publications

References 20 publications

Medium and large-sized mammals in a Cerrado area of the state of Goiás, Brazil

Medium and large-sized mammals in a Cerrado area of the state of Goiás, Brazil

Mammal inventories in Seasonal Neotropical Forests: traditional approaches still compensate drawbacks of modern technologies

Snap happy: camera traps are an effective sampling tool when compared with alternative methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About