Person:
Carter, Andrew

Profile Picture
Email Address
Affiliation
ORCID
Birth Date
Job Title
Last Name
Carter
First Name
Andrew
Creator of
Editor of
Reviewer of
Copyright Holder of
Data Contributor of
Funder of
Translator of
Other Contributor of

Filters

2020 - 20212
Reset filters

Settings

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Data package
    Data from: Space use and interactions of two introduced mesopredators, European red fox and feral cat, in an arid landscape
    (2021-12-20) Roshier, David A.; Carter, Andrew
    Introduced mammalian predators are drivers of species decline and extinction globally. The successful management and control of introduced mammalian predators is dependent on some knowledge of space use and movements in order to target a population and monitor outcomes. In Australia, these tasks are made complex as there is more than one significant introduced mammalian predator, namely the European red fox Vulpes vulpes and feral cat Felis catus, the landscapes are vast, and individual-level interactions between predators are little studied. The impact of these two introduced predators is large and a significant factor in the extinction of many of the country’s small- to medium-sized mammals, either regionally or globally. In a three-year study, we used high-frequency location data, the deployment of the latest GPS tracking technologies, and recent advances in statistical modeling to examine how these two species distributed themselves in space, the degree to which individual distributions overlapped, intra- and interspecific interactions, and temporal patterns of activity in an arid landscape. In the absence of an apex predator, the two introduced mesopredators showed large differences in how they distribute themselves across the landscape and interact with conspecifics. The red fox mostly occupies defined territories, while most feral cats roam apparently independent of each other with occasional periods of frequent interaction with conspecifics of either sex. Intraspecific attraction was strongest in cats, while interspecific avoidance was observed in both directions. The home ranges of feral cats that were range-resident were 3–3.5 times larger than foxes in the same landscape. Notably, we observed long-distance movements in feral cats and some were displaced up to 164 km from their point of release. A greater portion of the feral cat population were non-sedentary and therefore likely less amenable to local control efforts than foxes. Given the different patterns of distribution in time and space, the reliable monitoring of population trends or estimates of abundance will necessarily differ in extent, intensity, or duration for the same level of precision and/or require a different method for monitoring each population.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Data package
    Data from: Toward reliable population density estimates of partially marked populations using spatially explicit mark-resight methods
    (2020-02-25) Carter, Andrew; David A., Roshier
    (1) Camera traps are used increasingly to estimate population density for elusive and difficult to observe species. A standard practice for mammalian surveys is to place cameras on roads, trails, and paths to maximize detections and/or increase efficiency in the field. However, for many species it is unclear whether track‐based camera surveys provide reliable estimates of population density. (2) Understanding how the spatial arrangement of camera traps affects population density estimates is of key interest to contemporary conservationists and managers given the rapid increase in camera‐based wildlife surveys. (3) We evaluated the effect of camera‐trap placement, using several survey designs, on density estimates of a widespread mesopredator, the red fox Vulpes vulpes, over a two‐year period in a semi‐arid conservation reserve in south‐eastern Australia. Further, we used the certainty in the identity and whereabouts of individuals (via GPS collars) to assess how resighting rates of marked foxes affect density estimates using maximum likelihood spatially explicit mark–resight methods. (4) Fox detection rates were much higher at cameras placed on tracks compared with off‐track cameras, yet in the majority of sessions, camera placement had relatively little effect on point estimates of density. However, for each survey design, the precision of density estimates varied considerably across sessions, influenced heavily by the absolute number of marked foxes detected, the number of times marked foxes was resighted, and the number of detection events of unmarked foxes. (5) Our research demonstrates that the precision of population density estimates using spatially explicit mark–resight models is sensitive to resighting rates of identifiable individuals. Nonetheless, camera surveys based either on‐ or off‐track can provide reliable estimates of population density using spatially explicit mark–resight models. This underscores the importance of incorporating information on the spatial behavior of the subject species when planning camera‐trap surveys.