Estimation of the ecological density of some species of hunting animals according to winter route censuses

This article is devoted to the study of the possibility of determining the ecological density of game animals according to winter route censuses. Determining the density of game animals is a prerequisite for determining their prey quotas. The most valuable parameter characterizing population estimation of specific species of game animals is ecological density. She calculated for the area actually inhabited by a particular animal species. The population density, calculated on the area suitable for the type of land, is widely used in the practice of domestic hunting. Territories with feeding and protective properties for this species are considered suitable sites. The materials of winter route counts confirm that the territories suitable for any animal species are not always completely populated by it, and the territories recognized as unsuitable are visited by these animals. Tracking activity of game animals is recorded both in areas that are considered suitable for the species, and in areas that are not typical for it. The territory of the animal during the day is the area lying inside the minimum convex contour drawn around the daily track of this animal. In this case, as the territory occupied by some animal, we can consider the territory obtained by combining all the minimum convex contours drawn around all daily traces left by this animal for a certain time. The union of the minimum convex contours drawn around all daily traces left by all animals of a given species during the period of accounting work can be considered as the territory inhabited by them at this time of the year. The crossing of a track by a route is a random event. Therefore, to determine the ecological density of a species according to the winter route censuses data, it is necessary to apply the probability theory. 

1. Bannikov A. G., Teplov V. P. The movement of the number and density of the population of moose in the RSFSR. In: Biologiia i promysel losia [Biology and Fishing of Moose]. Moscow, Rossel'khozizdat Publ., 1964, book 1, pp. 5–12 (in Russian).

2. Danilov P. I. Distribution and abundance. In: Biologiia i ispol'zovanie losia. Obzor issledovanii [Biology and use of elk. Research Overview]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1986, pp. 87–90 (in Russian).

3. Danilov D. N., Rusanov Ya. S., Rykovsky A. S., Soldatkin E. I., Jurgenson P. B. Bonitirovka hunting grounds. In: Osnovy okhotustroistva [Fundamentals of Hunting Management]. Moscow, Lesnaia promyshlennost' Publ., 1966. 331 p. (in Russian).

4. Kondratenkov I. A., Oparin M. L., Oparina O. S., Sukhov S. V. Estimation of the growth rate of wild ungulate populations in the territory of the Saratov region by the dynamic series of their numbers. Povolzhskiy Journal of Ecology, 2021, no. 3, pp. 293–309 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.35885/1684-7318-2021-3-293-309

5. Lomanov I. K. Nauchnye osnovy okhotnich'ego resursovedeniia (izbrannye raboty). Pod red. N. V. Lomanovoi [Lomanova N. V., ed. Scientific Foundations of Hunting Resource Studies (Selected Works)]. Moscow, Tsentrokhotkontrol' Publ., 2007. 291 p. (in Russian).

6. Odum E. P. Basic Ecology: in 2 vols. Moscow, Mir Publ., 1986, vol. 2. 376 p. (in Russian).

7. Filonov K. P. Los' [Moose]. Moscow, Lesnaia promyshlennost' Publ., 1983. 246 p. (in Russian). Chelintsev N. G. Matematicheskie osnovy ucheta zhivotnykh [The Mathematical Basis of Animal Censuses]. Moscow, GU Tsentrokhotkontrol' Publ., 2000. 432 p. (in Russian).

8. Chervonny V. V. Distribution, population density and dynamics of the number of moose in the European part of the RSFSR. Proceedings of the Oka State Nature Biosphere Reserve, 1975, iss. XI, pp. 255 – 279 (in Russian).

9. Caughley G., Sinclair A. R. E. Wildlife Ecology and Management. Oxford, Blackwell Scientific, 1994. 334 p.

10. Dzięciolowski R. Estimating ungulate numbers in a forest by track counts. Acta Theriologica, 1976, vol. 21, no.15, pp. 217–222.

11. Engeman R. M., Constantin B., Nelson M., Woolard J., Bourassa J. Monitoring changes in feral swine abundance and spatial distribution. Environmental Conservation, 2001, vol. 28, iss. 3, pp. 235–240. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892901000248

12. Forsey E. S., Baggs E. M. Winter activity of mammals in riparian zones and adjacent forests prior to and following clear-cutting at Copper Lake, Newfoundland, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management, 2001, vol. 145, iss. 3, pp. 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00404-7

13. Gu W., Swihart R. K. Absent or undetected? Effects of non-detection of species occurrence on wildlife-habitat models. Biological Conservation, 2004, vol. 116, iss. 2, pp. 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00190-3

14. Keeping D., Pelletier R. Animal density and track counts: Understanding the nature of observations based on animal movements. PLoS ONE, 2014, vol. 9, no. 5, article number e96598. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096598

15. Keuling O., Sange M., Acevedo P., Podgorski T., Smith G., Scandura M., Apollonio M., Ferroglio E., Body G., Vicente J. Guidance on estimation of wild boar population abundance and density: methods, challenges, possibilities. EFSA Supporting Publications, 2018, vol. 15, iss. 7, article number EN-1449. https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.EN-1449

16. Kurki S., Nikula A., Helle P., Linden H. Abundances of red fox and pine marten in relation to the composition of boreal forest landscapes. Journal Animal Ecology, 1998, vol. 67, iss. 6, pp. 874–886. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.1998.6760874.x

17. Lindén H., Helle E., Helle P., Wikman M. Wildlife triangle scheme in Finland: methods and aims for monitoring wildlife populations. Finnish Game Research, 1996, vol. 49, pp. 4–11.

18. MacKenzie D. I., Nichols J. D. Occupancy as a surrogate for abundance estimation. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation, 2004, vol. 27, iss. 1, pp. 461–467.

19. MacKenzie D. I., Nichols J. D., Lachman G. B., Droege S., Royle J. A., Langtimm C. A. Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology, 2002, vol. 83, iss. 8, pp. 2248–2255.

20. Mohr C. O. Comparative populations of game, for and other mammals. The American Midland Naturalist, 1940, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 581–584. https://doi.org/10.2307/2420859

21. Nielsen S. E., Johnson C. J., Heard D. C., Boyce M. S. Can models of presence-absence be used to scale abundance? Two case studies considering extremes in life history. Ecography, 2005, vol. 28, iss. 2, pp. 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0906-7590.2005.04002.x

22. Stephens P. A., Zaumyslova O. Y., Miquelle D. G., Myslenkov A. I., Hayward G. D. Estimating population density from indirect sign: Track counts and the Formozov–Malyshev– Pereleshin formula. Animal Conservation, 2006, vol. 9, iss. 3, pp. 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2006.00044.x