4.3 Article

Methods for Locating African Lion Kills Using Global Positioning System Movement Data

期刊

JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
卷 74, 期 3, 页码 549-556

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.2193/2009-010

关键词

Global Positioning System (GPS); Kruger National Park; Panthera leo; predation; predator-prey interactions

资金

  1. James S. McDonell Foundation
  2. National Institutes of Health [GM83863]
  3. South African National Research Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Knowledge of the range, behavior, and feeding habits of large carnivores is fundamental to their successful conservation. Traditionally, the best method to obtain feeding data is through continuous observation, which is not always feasible. Reliable automated methods are needed to obtain sample sizes sufficient for statistical inference. Identification of large carnivore kill sites using Global Positioning System (GPS) data is gaining popularity. We assessed performance of generalized linear regression models (GLM) versus classification trees (CT) in a multipredator, multiprey African savanna ecosystem. We applied GLMs and CTs to various combinations of distance-traveled data, cluster durations, and environmental factors to predict occurrence of 234 female African lion (Panthera leo) kill sites from 1,477 investigated GPS clusters. Ratio of distance moved 24 hours before versus 24 hours after a cluster was the most important predictor variable in both GLM and CT analysis. In all cases, GLMs outperformed our cost-complexity-pruned CTs in their discriminative ability to separate kill from nonkill sites. Generalized linear models provided a good framework for kill-site identification that incorporates a hierarchal ordering of cluster investigation and measures to assess trade-offs between classification accuracy and time constraints. Implementation of GLMs within an adaptive sampling framework can considerably increase efficiency of locating kill sites, providing a cost-effective method for increasing sample sizes of kill data.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据