
@article {110789,
	title = {Comparison of methods for estimating density and population trends for low-density Asian bears},
	journal = {GLOBAL ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION},
	volume = {35},
	year = {2022},
	month = {06/2022},
	abstract = {<p>Populations of bears in Asia are vulnerable to extinction and effective monitoring is critical to measure and direct conservation efforts. Population abundance (local density) or growth (lambda) are the most sensitive metrics to change. We discuss the value in implementing spatially explicit capture-recapture (SCR), the current gold standard for density estimation, and open population SCR (OPSCR) to monitor changes in density over time. We provide guidance for designing studies to provide estimates with sufficient power to detect changes. Because of the wide availability of camera traps and interest in their use, we consider six density estimation methods and their extensions developed for use with camera traps, with specific consideration of assumptions and applications for monitoring Asian bears. We conducted a power analysis to calculate the precision in estimates needed to detect changes in populations with reference to IUCN Red List criteria. We performed a systematic review of empirical studies implementing camera trap abundance estimation methods and considered sample sizes, effort, and model assumptions required to achieve adequate precision for population monitoring. We found SCR and OPSCR, reliant on "marked" individuals, are currently the only methods with enough power to reliably detect even moderate to major (20-80\%) declines. Camera trap methods with unmarked individuals rarely achieved precision sufficient to detect even large declines (80-90\%), although with some exceptions (e.g., situations with moderate population densities, large number of sampling sites, or inclusion of ancillary local telemetry data. We describe additional estimation options including line transects, direct observations, monitoring age-specific survival and reproductive rates, and hybrid/integrated methodologies that may have potential to work for some Asian bear populations. We conclude monitoring changes in abundance or density is possible for most Asian bear populations but will require collaboration among researchers over broad spatial extents and extensive financial investment to overcome biological and logistical constraints. We strongly encourage practitioners to consider study design and sampling effort required to meet objectives by conducting simulations, power analyses, and assumption checks prior to implementing monitoring efforts, and reporting standardized dispersion measures such as coefficients of variation to allow for assessment of precision. Our guidance is relevant to other low-density and wide-ranging species.</p>
},
	doi = {10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02058},
	author = {Morin, Dana J. and Boulanger, John and Bischof, Richard and Lee, David C. and Ngoprasert, Dusit and Fuller, Angela K. and McLellan, Bruce and Steinmetz, Robert and Sharma, Sandeep and Garshelis, Dave and Gopalaswamy, Arjun and Nawaz, Muhammad Ali and Karanth, Ullas}
}
@article {108060,
	title = {Synthesizing habitat connectivity analyses of a globally important human-dominated tiger-conservation landscape.},
	journal = {Conserv Biol},
	year = {2022},
	month = {2022 Mar 14},
	abstract = {<p>As ecological data and associated analyses become more widely available, synthesizing results for effective communication with stakeholders is essential. In the case of wildlife corridors, managers in human-dominated landscapes need to identify both the locations of corridors and multiple stakeholders for effective oversight. We synthesized 5 independent studies of tiger (Panthera tigris) connectivity in central India, a global priority landscape for tiger conservation, to quantify agreement on landscape permeability for tiger movement and potential movement pathways. We used the latter analysis to identify connectivity areas on which studies agreed and stakeholders associated with these areas to determine relevant participants in corridor management. Three or more of the 5 studies{\textquoteright} resistance layers agreed in 63\% of the study area. Areas in which all studies agree on resistance were of primarily low (66\%, e.g., forest) and high (24\%, e.g., urban) resistance. Agreement was lower in intermediate resistance areas (e.g., agriculture). Despite these differences, the studies largely agreed on areas with high levels of potential movement: \&gt;40\% of high average (top 20\%) current-flow pixels were also in the top 20\% of current-flow agreement pixels (measured by low variation), indicating consensus connectivity areas (CCAs) as conservation priorities. Roughly 70\% of the CCAs fell within village administrative boundaries, and 100\% overlapped forest department management boundaries, suggesting that people live and use forests within these priority areas. Over 16\% of total CCAs{\textquoteright} area was within 1 km of linear infrastructure (437 road, 170 railway, 179 transmission line, and 339 canal crossings; 105 mines within 1 km of CCAs). In 2019, 78\% of forest land diversions for infrastructure and mining in Madhya Pradesh (which comprises most of the study region) took place in districts with CCAs. Acute competition for land in this landscape with globally important wildlife corridors calls for an effective comanagement strategy involving local communities, forest departments, Appendix 1 and infrastructure planners. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.</p>
},
	issn = {1523-1739},
	doi = {10.1111/cobi.13909},
	author = {Schoen, Jay M and Neelakantan, Amrita and Cushman, Samuel A and Dutta, Trishna and Habib, Bilal and Jhala, Yadvendradev V and Mondal, Indranil and Ramakrishnan, Uma and Reddy, P Anuradha and Saini, Swati and Sharma, Sandeep and Thatte, Prachi and Yumnam, Bibek and DeFries, Ruth}
}
