A comparison of population estimation techniques for individually unidentifiable free-roaming dogs.
Dog abundance
Free-roaming dogs
Mark resight
Population estimation
Journal
BMC veterinary research
ISSN: 1746-6148
Titre abrégé: BMC Vet Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101249759
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Jun 2019
07 Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
08
01
2019
accepted:
29
05
2019
entrez:
9
6
2019
pubmed:
9
6
2019
medline:
10
7
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Measuring the size of free roaming dog populations quickly and accurately is critical in the implementation of numerous preventive health and population control interventions. However, few studies have investigated the relative performance of population size assessment tools when applied to dogs. The aim of this study was to compare the commonly used mark-resight methodology with distance sampling methods, which are less resource intensive, to estimate free-roaming dog abundance in Goa, India. Twenty-six working zones were surveyed along all roads twice by the same surveyor at the same time of day, following a vaccination campaign which included marking of vaccinated dogs with a coloured paint. The Chapman estimate was then used to evaluate the mark-resight abundance. Additionally, the number of dogs and perpendicular distance from the road for all dogs sighted was recorded. This was used to estimate dog density and abundance using distance sampling methods. The detection function was fitted based on goodness-of-fit and AIC. The Chapman abundance estimate for the entire study area was 5202 dogs (95%CI 4733.8-5671.0), and the distance sampling method abundance estimate was 5067 dogs (95%CI 4454.3-5764.2). For individual working zones, after taking other factors into account in a mixed effects model, the average distance sampling estimate was 35% higher (95%CI 20-53%) than the Chapman estimate. There was also evidence of a difference in estimates between surveyors of 21% (95%CI 7-37%) and between days (22% lower on day 2, 95%CI 8-38%) for individual working zones. Our study demonstrated that the distance sampling estimates were comparable overall to the Chapman method of abundance estimation of free roaming dogs across the entire study region but there was noticeable variation between the two methods when individual zones were compared. Consequently, distance sampling methods may be suitable to enumerate dogs over large areas in a more time efficient manner than the widely used mark-resight approach.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Measuring the size of free roaming dog populations quickly and accurately is critical in the implementation of numerous preventive health and population control interventions. However, few studies have investigated the relative performance of population size assessment tools when applied to dogs. The aim of this study was to compare the commonly used mark-resight methodology with distance sampling methods, which are less resource intensive, to estimate free-roaming dog abundance in Goa, India. Twenty-six working zones were surveyed along all roads twice by the same surveyor at the same time of day, following a vaccination campaign which included marking of vaccinated dogs with a coloured paint. The Chapman estimate was then used to evaluate the mark-resight abundance. Additionally, the number of dogs and perpendicular distance from the road for all dogs sighted was recorded. This was used to estimate dog density and abundance using distance sampling methods. The detection function was fitted based on goodness-of-fit and AIC.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The Chapman abundance estimate for the entire study area was 5202 dogs (95%CI 4733.8-5671.0), and the distance sampling method abundance estimate was 5067 dogs (95%CI 4454.3-5764.2). For individual working zones, after taking other factors into account in a mixed effects model, the average distance sampling estimate was 35% higher (95%CI 20-53%) than the Chapman estimate. There was also evidence of a difference in estimates between surveyors of 21% (95%CI 7-37%) and between days (22% lower on day 2, 95%CI 8-38%) for individual working zones.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our study demonstrated that the distance sampling estimates were comparable overall to the Chapman method of abundance estimation of free roaming dogs across the entire study region but there was noticeable variation between the two methods when individual zones were compared. Consequently, distance sampling methods may be suitable to enumerate dogs over large areas in a more time efficient manner than the widely used mark-resight approach.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31174545
doi: 10.1186/s12917-019-1938-1
pii: 10.1186/s12917-019-1938-1
pmc: PMC6556045
doi:
Substances chimiques
Rabies Vaccines
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
190Subventions
Organisme : Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
ID : bb/J004235/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Vaccine. 2003 May 16;21(17-18):1965-73
pubmed: 12706685
Int J Infect Dis. 2007 Jan;11(1):29-35
pubmed: 16678463
Vet Rec. 2006 Sep 16;159(12):379-83
pubmed: 16980523
Theriogenology. 2010 Jun;73(9):1167-79
pubmed: 20138353
Theriogenology. 2010 Oct 15;74(7):1115-20
pubmed: 20580080
Prev Vet Med. 2010 Oct 1;97(1):58-63
pubmed: 20709415
BMC Vet Res. 2011 Aug 11;7:46
pubmed: 21834979
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(2):e1388
pubmed: 22389727
Vaccine. 2012 May 21;30(24):3492-502
pubmed: 22480924
Prev Vet Med. 2013 Aug 1;111(1-2):139-46
pubmed: 23664490
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015 May 15;9(5):e0003784
pubmed: 25978406
Prev Vet Med. 2015 Sep 1;121(1-2):179-82
pubmed: 26092723
PLoS One. 2015 Dec 16;10(12):e0144830
pubmed: 26673165
BMC Infect Dis. 2015 Dec 29;15:589
pubmed: 26715371
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Jul 14;10(7):e0004824
pubmed: 27414810
Epidemiol Infect. 2017 May;145(7):1339-1350
pubmed: 28202088
BMC Vet Res. 2017 May 30;13(1):143
pubmed: 28558736
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Animals (Basel). 2017 Aug 03;7(8):null
pubmed: 28771177
PLoS One. 2017 Nov 1;12(11):e0187233
pubmed: 29091961
Front Vet Sci. 2018 May 23;5:104
pubmed: 29881728
PLoS One. 2018 Jul 26;13(7):e0200942
pubmed: 30048469
Vaccine. 1996 Feb;14(3):185-6
pubmed: 8920697
Prev Vet Med. 1998 Jan;33(1-4):207-18
pubmed: 9500175