Data from: Estimating density for species conservation: comparing camera trap spatial count models to genetic spatial capture-recapture models

We evaluated model agreement, precision, and survey costs, between i) a fully marked approach using SCR models fit using non-invasive genetic data, and ii) an unmarked approach using SC models fit using camera trap data, for a recovering population of the mesocarnivore fisher (Pekania pennanti). The SCR density estimates ranged from 2.95 to 3.42 (2.18–5.19 95% BCI) fishers 100 km−2. The SC density estimates were influenced by their priors, ranging from 0.95 (0.65–2.95 95% BCI) fishers 100 km−2 for the uninformative model to 3.60 (2.01–7.55 95% BCI) fishers 100 km−2 for the model informed by prior knowledge of a 16 km2 fisher home range.

We caution against using strongly informative priors but instead recommend using a range of unweighted prior knowledge. Thin detection data was problematic for both SCR and SC models, potentially producing biased low estimates. The total cost of the genetic survey ($47 610) was two-thirds of the camera trap survey ($77 080), or comparable ($75 746) if genetic sampling effort was increased to include sex and trap-behaviour covariates in SCR models.

Density estimation of unmarked populations continues to be a series of trade-offs but as methods improve and integrate, so will our estimates.

Usage notes

Trap Deployment File (TDF) Site location data TDF.csv Encounter Data File (EDF) Individual encounter histories for SCR models. edf.csv Fisher Camera Detections Unmarked fisher camera detection data Fisher_60min2016_matrix.csv