Back

Rationalizing the application of spatial capture-recapture versus space-to-event models for monitoring populations of an endangered social carnivore

Ganguly, D.; Sharma, A. D.; Ramakrishnan, U.; Srivathsa, A.

2026-09-28 ecology
10.64898/2026.09.25.754339 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Reliable estimates of population size are fundamental to understanding wildlife population status and informing conservation. Obtaining such estimates remains challenging for unmarked species, particularly in tropical countries where logistical and financial constraints limit intensive monitoring. The endangered dhole (Cuon alpinus), a highly social canid without natural markings, is one such species for which robust population estimates remain scarce. We estimated dhole density in the Valparai plateau, a human-dominated agroforest-forest mosaic in India's Western Ghats. We compared Spatially Explicit Capture-Recapture (SECR) models based on individual identification from fecal DNA and Space-to-Event (STE) models based on camera-trap detections. We additionally applied both approaches to individually identifiable leopards (Panthera pardus) to cross-validate STE versus SECR estimates. SECR estimated dhole density at 22 individuals per 100 sq.km, with STE estimates varying substantially depending on how the camera viewshed area was defined. STE estimates based on post hoc viewshed measurements, particularly after reducing the viewshed by 10%, were comparable to SECR estimates. In contrast, STE underestimated leopard density relative to SECR (7 versus 12 per 100 sq.km), although uncertainty intervals overlapped. Ecologically, our results indicate that human-use agroforest mosaics can support dhole densities comparable to, or exceeding, those reported from several Protected Areas, highlighting their potential importance for dhole conservation. More broadly, we argue that STE models may offer a practical and relatively inexpensive approach for baseline monitoring of dholes from camera-trap surveys, but their reliability depends strongly on accurate characterization of the effective viewshed and may vary across species and landscapes.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.