{"id":{"repo_id":"tdl","oai_identifier":"oai:tdl-ir.tdl.org:1969.1/3812"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/tdl/oai:tdl-ir.tdl.org:1969.1/3812","repository":{"repo_id":"tdl","name":"Texas Digital Library","base_url":"https://tdl-ir.tdl.org/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Estimating density of Florida Key deer","abstract":"Florida Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium) were listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1967. A variety of survey methods have been used in estimating deer density and/or changes in population trends for this species since 1968; however, a need to evaluate the precision of existing and alternative survey methods (i.e., road counts, mark-recapture, infrared-triggered cameras [ITC]) was desired by USFWS. I evaluated density estimates from unbaited ITCs and road surveys. Road surveys (n = 253) were conducted along a standardized 4-km route each week between January 1999??December 2000 (total deer observed, n = 4,078). During this same period, 11 ITC stations (1 camera/42 ha) collected 5,511 deer exposures. Study results found a difference (P < 0.001) between methods with road survey estimates lower (76 deer) than ITC estimates (166 deer). Comparing the proportion of marked deer, I observed a higher (P < 0.001) proportion from road surveys (0.266) than from ITC estimates (0.146). Lower road survey estimates are attributed to (1) urban deer behavior resulting in a high proportion of marked deer observations, and (2) inadequate sample area coverage. I suggest that ITC estimates are a reliable and precise alternative to road surveys for estimating Key deer densities on outer islands. I also evaluated density estimates from 3 road survey methods. Road survey methods (n = 100) were conducted along a standardized 31-km route where markresight, strip-transect, and distance sampling data were collected between June 2003?? May 2004. I found mark-resight estimates to be lower ( x = 384, 95% CI = 346??421) than strip-transect estimates ( x = 854, 95% CI = 806??902) and distance estimates ( x = 523, 95% CI = 488??557). I attribute low mark-resight estimates to urban deer behavior resulting in a higher proportion of marked deer observations along roadways. High strip-transect estimates also are attributed to urban deer behavior and a reduced effective strip width due to dense vegetation. I propose that estimates using distance sampling eliminate some of these biases, and recommend their use in the future.","abstract_html":"Florida Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium) were listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1967. A variety of survey methods have been used in estimating deer density and/or changes in population trends for this species since 1968; however, a need to evaluate the precision of existing and alternative survey methods (i.e., road counts, mark-recapture, infrared-triggered cameras [ITC]) was desired by USFWS. I evaluated density estimates from unbaited ITCs and road surveys. Road surveys (n = 253) were conducted along a standardized 4-km route each week between January 1999??December 2000 (total deer observed, n = 4,078). During this same period, 11 ITC stations (1 camera/42 ha) collected 5,511 deer exposures. Study results found a difference (P &lt; 0.001) between methods with road survey estimates lower (76 deer) than ITC estimates (166 deer). Comparing the proportion of marked deer, I observed a higher (P &lt; 0.001) proportion from road surveys (0.266) than from ITC estimates (0.146). Lower road survey estimates are attributed to (1) urban deer behavior resulting in a high proportion of marked deer observations, and (2) inadequate sample area coverage. I suggest that ITC estimates are a reliable and precise alternative to road surveys for estimating Key deer densities on outer islands. I also evaluated density estimates from 3 road survey methods. Road survey methods (n = 100) were conducted along a standardized 31-km route where markresight, strip-transect, and distance sampling data were collected between June 2003?? May 2004. I found mark-resight estimates to be lower ( x = 384, 95% CI = 346??421) than strip-transect estimates ( x = 854, 95% CI = 806??902) and distance estimates ( x = 523, 95% CI = 488??557). I attribute low mark-resight estimates to urban deer behavior resulting in a higher proportion of marked deer observations along roadways. High strip-transect estimates also are attributed to urban deer behavior and a reduced effective strip width due to dense vegetation. I propose that estimates using distance sampling eliminate some of these biases, and recommend their use in the future.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Roberts, Clay Walton"],"institution":"Texas A&M University","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Lopez, Roel R."],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2006,"date_issued":"2006-08-16","date_published":"2006-08-16","updated_at":"2026-08-21T22:21:56Z","subjects":["Density","Key Deer"],"languages":["en_US"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/3812","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"source_record":{"url":"https://tdl-ir.tdl.org/server/oai/request?verb=GetRecord&metadataPrefix=dim&identifier=oai%3Atdl-ir.tdl.org%3A1969.1%2F3812","prefix":"dim"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Lopez, Roel R."]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Roberts, Clay Walton"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2006-08-16T19:04:44Z","2017-04-07T19:51:34Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2006-08-16T19:04:44Z","2017-04-07T19:51:34Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2006-08-16"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Texas A&M University"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Book","Thesis"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Density","Key Deer"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en_US"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/3812"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Florida Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium) were listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1967. A variety of survey methods have been used in estimating deer density and/or changes in population trends for this species since 1968; however, a need to evaluate the precision of existing and alternative survey methods (i.e., road counts, mark-recapture, infrared-triggered cameras [ITC]) was desired by USFWS. I evaluated density estimates from unbaited ITCs and road surveys. Road surveys (n = 253) were conducted along a standardized 4-km route each week between January 1999??December 2000 (total deer observed, n = 4,078). During this same period, 11 ITC stations (1 camera/42 ha) collected 5,511 deer exposures. Study results found a difference (P < 0.001) between methods with road survey estimates lower (76 deer) than ITC estimates (166 deer). Comparing the proportion of marked deer, I observed a higher (P < 0.001) proportion from road surveys (0.266) than from ITC estimates (0.146). Lower road survey estimates are attributed to (1) urban deer behavior resulting in a high proportion of marked deer observations, and (2) inadequate sample area coverage. I suggest that ITC estimates are a reliable and precise alternative to road surveys for estimating Key deer densities on outer islands. I also evaluated density estimates from 3 road survey methods. Road survey methods (n = 100) were conducted along a standardized 31-km route where markresight, strip-transect, and distance sampling data were collected between June 2003?? May 2004. I found mark-resight estimates to be lower ( x = 384, 95% CI = 346??421) than strip-transect estimates ( x = 854, 95% CI = 806??902) and distance estimates ( x = 523, 95% CI = 488??557). I attribute low mark-resight estimates to urban deer behavior resulting in a higher proportion of marked deer observations along roadways. High strip-transect estimates also are attributed to urban deer behavior and a reduced effective strip width due to dense vegetation. I propose that estimates using distance sampling eliminate some of these biases, and recommend their use in the future."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Estimating density of Florida Key deer"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Lopez, Roel R."],"dc:creator":["Roberts, Clay Walton"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2006-08-16T19:04:44Z","2017-04-07T19:51:34Z"],"dc:date.available":["2006-08-16T19:04:44Z","2017-04-07T19:51:34Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2006-08-16"],"dc:description.abstract":["Florida Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium) were listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1967. A variety of survey methods have been used in estimating deer density and/or changes in population trends for this species since 1968; however, a need to evaluate the precision of existing and alternative survey methods (i.e., road counts, mark-recapture, infrared-triggered cameras [ITC]) was desired by USFWS. I evaluated density estimates from unbaited ITCs and road surveys. Road surveys (n = 253) were conducted along a standardized 4-km route each week between January 1999??December 2000 (total deer observed, n = 4,078). During this same period, 11 ITC stations (1 camera/42 ha) collected 5,511 deer exposures. Study results found a difference (P < 0.001) between methods with road survey estimates lower (76 deer) than ITC estimates (166 deer). Comparing the proportion of marked deer, I observed a higher (P < 0.001) proportion from road surveys (0.266) than from ITC estimates (0.146). Lower road survey estimates are attributed to (1) urban deer behavior resulting in a high proportion of marked deer observations, and (2) inadequate sample area coverage. I suggest that ITC estimates are a reliable and precise alternative to road surveys for estimating Key deer densities on outer islands. I also evaluated density estimates from 3 road survey methods. Road survey methods (n = 100) were conducted along a standardized 31-km route where markresight, strip-transect, and distance sampling data were collected between June 2003?? May 2004. I found mark-resight estimates to be lower ( x = 384, 95% CI = 346??421) than strip-transect estimates ( x = 854, 95% CI = 806??902) and distance estimates ( x = 523, 95% CI = 488??557). I attribute low mark-resight estimates to urban deer behavior resulting in a higher proportion of marked deer observations along roadways. High strip-transect estimates also are attributed to urban deer behavior and a reduced effective strip width due to dense vegetation. I propose that estimates using distance sampling eliminate some of these biases, and recommend their use in the future."],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/3812"],"dc:language.iso":["en_US"],"dc:publisher":["Texas A&M University"],"dc:subject":["Density","Key Deer"],"dc:title":["Estimating density of Florida Key deer"],"dc:type":["Book","Thesis"]},"updated_at":"2026-08-21T22:21:56Z"}