Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/33564
Appears in Collections:Biological and Environmental Sciences Journal Articles
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: Methods for wildlife monitoring in tropical forests: Comparing human observations, camera traps, and passive acoustic sensors
Author(s): Zwerts, Joeri A
Stephenson, P J
Maisels, Fiona
Rowcliffe, Marcus
Astaras, Christos
Jansen, Patrick A
Waarde, Jaap
Sterck, Liesbeth E H M
Verweij, Pita A
Bruce, Tom
Brittain, Stephanie
Kuijk, Marijke
Keywords: automated classification
camera trapping
evidence-based conservation
passive acoustic monitoring
wildlife conservation
wildlife monitoring methods
Issue Date: Dec-2021
Date Deposited: 4-Nov-2021
Citation: Zwerts JA, Stephenson PJ, Maisels F, Rowcliffe M, Astaras C, Jansen PA, Waarde J, Sterck LEHM, Verweij PA, Bruce T, Brittain S & Kuijk M (2021) Methods for wildlife monitoring in tropical forests: Comparing human observations, camera traps, and passive acoustic sensors. Conservation Science and Practice, 3 (12), Art. No.: e568. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.568
Abstract: Wildlife monitoring is essential for conservation science and data-driven decision-making. Tropical forests pose a particularly challenging environment for monitoring wildlife due to the dense vegetation, and diverse and cryptic species with relatively low abundances. The most commonly used monitoring methods in tropical forests are observations made by humans (visual or acoustic), camera traps, or passive acoustic sensors. These methods come with trade-offs in terms of species coverage, accuracy and precision of population metrics, available technical expertise, and costs. Yet, there are no reviews that compare the characteristics of these methods in detail. Here, we comprehensively review the advantages and limitations of the three mentioned methods, by asking four key questions that are always important in relation to wildlife monitoring: (1) What are the target species?; (2) Which population metrics are desirable and attainable?; (3) What expertise, tools, and effort are required for species identification?; and (4) Which financial and human resources are required for data collection and processing? Given the diversity of monitoring objectives and circumstances, we do not aim to conclusively prescribe particular methods for all situations. Neither do we claim that any one method is superior to others. Rather, our review aims to support scientists and conservation practitioners in understanding the options and criteria that must be considered in choosing the appropriate method, given the objectives of their wildlife monitoring efforts and resources available. We focus on tropical forests because of their high conservation priority, although the information put forward is also relevant for other biomes.
DOI Link: 10.1111/csp2.568
Rights: © 2021 The Authors. Conservation Science and Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Licence URL(s): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Zwerts et al 2021 CSP.pdfFulltext - Published Version3.56 MBAdobe PDFView/Open



This item is protected by original copyright



A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.