Evaluation of invasive and non‐invasive methods to monitor rodent abundance in the Arctic

• DOI: 10.1002/ecs2.2124
• Publication Date: 2018-02-26T16:27:05Z
• Authors: Dominique Fauteux; Gilles Gauthier; Marc J. Mazerolle; Nicolas Coallier; Joël Bêty; Dominique Berteaux
• Keywords: Mark and recapture; Burrow; Quadrat

Abstract Monitoring rodent abundance is critical to understand direct and indirect trophic interactions in most northern terrestrial ecosystems. However, logistic constraints can prevent researchers from using capture–mark–recapture methods, a robust approach estimate abundance. Our objective was determine the correlation between estimates of Arctic lemmings obtained live‐trapping data with spatially explicit capture–recapture models ( SECR ; N/ha) indices snap‐trapping along trap lines (N/100 trap‐nights), winter nest sampling transects distance (N/ha), burrow counting within quadrats m 2 ), incidental observations observer‐hr). We also evaluated impact reduced effort on bias precision each estimate. Data brown Lemmus trimucronatus ) collared Dicrostonyx groenlandicus were collected year 2007 2016 Bylot Island, Nunavut, Canada. Snap‐trapping r = 0.90) 0.92) yielded highest correlations densities for lemmings, abundant species. When combining both lemming species, 0.77) correlations. Indices nests burrows correlated > 0.50) densities, but lesser degree. found that generally increased when methods involving modeling capture or detection probabilities (i.e., live‐trapping, nests), remained low other methods. In contrast, high models, decreased substantially during years Non‐convergence reducing frequent Interestingly, collecting >200 h generated highly reliable compared results indicating such non‐invasive method provide valuable at cost. guidelines invasive be used small mammals cannot live‐trapped suggest required achieve given precision.