Comparison of Two Detection Methods for a Declining Rodent, the Allegheny Woodrat, in Virginia

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorThorne, Emily D.en
dc.contributor.authorPowers, Karen E.en
dc.contributor.authorReynolds, Richard J.en
dc.contributor.authorBeckner, Makayla E.en
dc.contributor.authorEllis, Karissa A.en
dc.contributor.authorFord, W. Marken
dc.coverage.countryUnited Statesen
dc.coverage.stateVirginiaen
dc.date.accessioned2023-04-17T19:16:04Zen
dc.date.available2023-04-17T19:16:04Zen
dc.date.issued2022-12en
dc.description.abstractAllegheny woodrats Neotoma magister are an imperiled small mammal species most associated with emergent rock habitats in the central Appalachian Mountains and the Ohio River Valley. The monitoring of populations and their spatiotemporal distributions typically has relied on labor-intensive livetrapping. The use of remote-detecting cameras holds promise for being an equally or more effective method to determine species presence, although trap-based captures permit the estimation of other parameters (e.g., survival, population size, site fidelity). In 2017, 2018, and 2020 we compared standard livetrapping with paired cameras for determining site occupancy of Allegheny woodrats in the central Appalachian Mountains of western Virginia. We further examined the influence of baited vs. unbaited cameras at several sites of confirmed occupancy in 2019. We observed that the detection probability using cameras was approximately 1.7 times that of live traps. Also, detection probability at baited camera traps was 1.3-2.0 times that of unbaited camera traps. Estimates of occupancy ranged from 0.44 to 0.49. Our findings suggest that the use of baited remote-detecting cameras provides a more effective method than livetrapping for detecting Allegheny woodrats. Our study provides a framework for the development of a large-scale, long-term monitoring protocol of Allegheny woodrats with the goals of identifying changes in the distribution of the species and quantifying local extinction and colonization rates at emergent rock outcrops and caves throughout the species' known distribution.en
dc.description.notesFunding and equipment provided by the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources through a Wildlife Restoration Grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Radford University. We thank many private land-owners for providing access survey sites. We are grateful to J. Bentley, J. Brown, C. Bryan, J. Crotts, H. Custer, M. Dimas, E. Gladin, A. Leon, N. McDonald, B. Mullen, K. Nelson-Anderson, L. Platt, L. Van Meter, and C. Wozniak for field assistance. We also thank three anonymous reviewers and the Associate Editor who provided comments that improved an earlier version of this manuscript. Any use of trade, product, website, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.en
dc.description.sponsorshipVirginia Department of Wildlife Resourcesen
dc.description.versionPublished versionen
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.3996/JFWM-21-037en
dc.identifier.issue2en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/114530en
dc.identifier.volume13en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherU S Fish & Wildlife Serviceen
dc.rightsPublic Domain (U.S.)en
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/en
dc.subjectAllegheny woodraten
dc.subjectbaiten
dc.subjectcamera trapen
dc.subjectdetectionen
dc.subjectlive trapen
dc.subjectNeotoma magisteren
dc.subjectVirginiaen
dc.titleComparison of Two Detection Methods for a Declining Rodent, the Allegheny Woodrat, in Virginiaen
dc.title.serialJournal of Fish and Wildlife Managementen
dc.typeArticle - Refereeden
dc.type.dcmitypeTexten

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
i1944-687x-13-2-396.pdf
Size:
4.02 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Published version
Download

Collections

Scholarly Works, Fish and Wildlife Conservation