Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-zeroDec 2014View details →

Data from: Network analyses support the role of prey preferences in shaping resource use patterns within five animal populations

Individual variation is an inherent aspect of animal populations and understanding the mechanisms shaping resource use patterns within populations is crucial to comprehend how individuals partition resources. Theory predicts that differences in prey preferences among consumers and/or differences in the likelihood of adding new resources to their diets are key mechanisms underlying intrapopulation variation in resource use. We developed network models based on optimal diet theory that simulate how individuals consume resources under varying scenarios of individual variation in prey preferences and in the willingness of consuming alternate resources. We then investigated how the structure of individual–resource networks generated under each model compared to the structure of observed networks representing five classical examples of individual diet variation. Our results support the notion that, for the studied populations, individual variation in prey preferences is the major factor explaining patterns in individual–resource networks. In contrast, variation in the willingness of adding prey does not seem to play an important role in shaping patterns of resource use. Individual differences in prey preferences in the studied populations may be generated by complex behavioral rules related to cognitive constraints and experience. Our approach provides a pathway for mapping foraging models into network patterns, which may allow determining the possible mechanisms leading to variation in resource use within populations.

opencc-zeroDec 2018View details →

Data from: Use of hidden Markov capture-recapture models to estimate abundance in presence of uncertainty: application to estimating the prevalence of hybrids in animal populations

Estimating the relative abundance (prevalence) of different population segments is a key step in addressing fundamental research questions in ecology, evolution, and conservation. The raw percentage of individuals in the sample (naive prevalence) is generally used for this purpose, but it is likely to be subject to two main sources of bias. First, the detectability of individuals is ignored; second, classification errors may occur due to some inherent limits of the diagnostic methods. We developed a hidden Markov (also known as multievent) capture–recapture model to estimate prevalence in free‐ranging populations accounting for imperfect detectability and uncertainty in individual's classification. We carried out a simulation study to compare naive and model‐based estimates of prevalence and assess the performance of our model under different sampling scenarios. We then illustrate our method with a real‐world case study of estimating the prevalence of wolf (Canis lupus) and dog (Canis lupus familiaris) hybrids in a wolf population in northern Italy. We showed that the prevalence of hybrids could be estimated while accounting for both detectability and classification uncertainty. Model‐based prevalence consistently had better performance than naive prevalence in the presence of differential detectability and assignment probability and was unbiased for sampling scenarios with high detectability. We also showed that ignoring detectability and uncertainty in the wolf case study would lead to underestimating the prevalence of hybrids. Our results underline the importance of a model‐based approach to obtain unbiased estimates of prevalence of different population segments. Our model can be adapted to any taxa, and it can be used to estimate absolute abundance and prevalence in a variety of cases involving imperfect detection and uncertainty in classification of individuals (e.g., sex ratio, proportion of breeders, and prevalence of infected individuals).

opencc-zeroMar 2020View details →

Population asynchrony alone does not explain stability in species rich soil animal assemblages: the stabilising role of forest age on oribatid mite communities

1. The importance of microbial and plant communities in the control of the diversity and structure of soil animal communities has been clarified over the last decade. Previous research focused on abiotic factors, niche separation and spatial patterns. Significant gaps still exist in our knowledge of the factors that control the stability of these communities over time. 2. We analysed a nine-year data set form the national Long-term Ecological Research Network of Latvia. We focused on 117 oribatid species from three Scots pine forests of different age (<40 yrs, 65 yrs, and >150 yrs) and structure. For each forest type, 100 samples were collected each year, providing very high replication and long of time series for a soil community. We assessed different aspects of stability: we used a dynamic null model, parametrised on observed growth rates, to test the hypothesis that asynchrony in species populations stabilises total community size; we also analysed alpha and beta diversity over time to test the hypothesis that temporal variation in species composition and relative abundances is controlled by forest attributes. 3. Real communities can be more stable than their stochastic counterparts if species are asynchronous, confirming for the first time the role of asynchrony in stabilising soil communities. Yet, while some real communities were more stable and had higher abundance and growth rates than others, they were not necessarily more asynchronous than the less stable communities. Species composition and relative abundances were also less variable in the more stable communities. 4. Species asynchrony generally stabilises species rich communities but is not sufficient to explain different levels of stability between forests. Forest age is a key factor explaining different levels of overyielding and so stability. Data suggests that both asynchrony and high diversity of microhabitat structure of Scots pine forests promote stability of soil animal communities.

Distribution. Java. Several biogeographic reviews failed to list the genus for Bali, an island directly east of Java with strong biogeographic affinities to the latter. A sighting was, however, reported from Bali Barat National Park, in a birdwatching trip report. Given the live-animal trade of this species on Java, further records are needed to confirm whether or not there is a native population of the genus on Bali. If there is, biogeographic considerations suggest it would be most closely related to the Javan population and quite probably conspecific. in Tragulidae

Distribution. Java. Several biogeographic reviews failed to list the genus for Bali, an island directly east of Java with strong biogeographic affinities to the latter. A sighting was, however, reported from Bali Barat National Park, in a birdwatching trip report. Given the live-animal trade of this species on Java, further records are needed to confirm whether or not there is a native population of the genus on Bali. If there is, biogeographic considerations suggest it would be most closely related to the Javan population and quite probably conspecific.

Subspecies and Distribution. S. s. scrofa Linnaeus, 1758 — W Europe, from Denmark, Germany, Poland, and Czech Republic to N Italy and N Iberian Peninsula; possibly also Albania. The taxonomic status of animals in Austria, Switzerland, Slovenia, and Slovakia is unclear but presumably these populations are included in scrofa, as are the populations of Sweden, Finland, and the Baltic states. However, restocking of once depleted populations, for example in Italy, has likely involved the introduction and mixing of this subspecies with other subspecies, such as attila. S. s. affinis Gray, 1847 — S India and Sri Lanka. S. s. algirus Loche, 1867 — Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco, on the coastal side of the mountains or in the low montane areas. S. s. attila Thomas, 1912 — Hungary, Ukraine, C & S Belarus, Romania, Moldova, and S Russia towards the N flank of the Caucasus, but not including the Transcaucasian countries of Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. The range possibly extends as far S as the Mesopotamian Delta in Iraq, in which case it would likely include W & SW Iran, and possibly E Turkey and Syria, where it borders with lybicus. Such a range could not be easily reconciled with a statement by Groves that "the difference between pigs from N and S of the Caucasus is quite striking; Transcaucasian boars are certainly not attila." This subspecies may also extend into C Asia and include Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan, but no data exist to support this. S. s. baeticus Thomas, 1912 — originally described from Coto Donana, S Spain, and later merged with meridionalis; also S Portugal. Unless evidence is found that these Italian and Iberian populations are the relics of a much larger formerly contiguous range, this subspecies should be kept as distinct. S. s. coreanus Heude, 1897 — Korean Peninsula. S. s. eristatus Wagner, 1839 — Himalayas S to C India and E to Indochina (N of the Kra Isthmus). S. s. davidi Groves, 1981 — the arid zone from E Iran to Gujarat, including Pakistan and NW India, and perhaps N to Tajikistan. S. s. leucomystax Temminck, 1842 — main Is ofJapan (Honshu, Shikoku, Kyushu, Nakadori, Hiburijima, Tojima, Kushima, and other smaller Is). S. s. lybicus Gray, 1868 — Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, in the past also in Lybia, and Egypt. The former Yugoslavia was included in its range, which would suggest that now Slovenia, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Kosovo are within the range of this subspecies, although the exact boundaries are unclear. Pigs from Albania have been assigned to S. s. scrofa. S. s. majori De Beaux & Festa, 1927 — C & S Italian Peninsula. S. s. menidionalis Forsyth Major, 1882 — Corsica and Sardinia, with the proviso that the two populations are very likely to be introduced or feral. S. s. moupinensis Milne-Edwards, 1871 — China, S to Vietnam and W to Sichuan. S. s. nigripes Blanford, 1875 — the flanks of the Tianshan mountains in Kyrgyzstan and NW China (Xinjiang). An animal photographed in NE Iran (Golestan) looked like this subspecies. S. s. nukiuanus Kuroda, 1924 — Iriomote, Ishigaki, Okinawa, Tokunoshima, Amamioshima, and Kakerome Is in the Ryukyu chain in extreme S Japan, though some of these populations have hybridized with introduced domesticates. S. s. sibiricus Staffe, 1922 — Mongolia and Transbaikal (S & E of Lake Baikal). S. s. tawvanus Swinhoe, 1863 — Taiwan. S. s. ussuricus Heude, 1888 — far E Russia and the Manchurian region (China). Korean populations were previously included in this subspecies, but based on new evidence, the Korean taxon seems more similar to moupinensis. S. s. vittatus Boie, 1828 — Malay Peninsula, S of the Isthmus of Kra, the offshore islands of Terutai and Langkawi, Sumatra, Riau Archipelago, Java, Bali, and a range of smaller islands around these, including Babi, Bakong, Batam, Bawean, Bengkalis, Bintan, Bulan, Bunguran, Cuyo, Deli, Durian, Enggano, Galang, Jambongan, Karimon (Riau Is), Kundur, Lagong, Laut, Lingga, Lingung, Mapor, Moro Kecil, North Pagai, Nias, Panaitan, Payong, Penang, Pinie, Rupat, Siantan, Siberut, Simeulue, Singkep, Sugi, Sugi Bawa, Telibon, Tinggi, Tuangku, and the Tambelan Is. This species was originally present from the British Is in the extreme W, through Eurasia from S Scandinavia to S Siberia, extending as far E as Korea and Japan, and SE into some of the Sunda Is and Taiwan. In the S the species ranged along the Nile Valley to Khartoum, and N of the Sahara in Africa, more orless following the continental coasts of S, E, and SE Asia. Within this range it was absent only from extremely dry deserts, e.g. the driest regions of Mongolia and in China W of Sichuan; and alpine zones, such as the high altitudes of Pamir and Tien Shan. In recent centuries, the range of S. scrofa has changed dramatically because of hunting and changes in available habitat. The species disappeared from the British Is in the 17" century, from Denmark in the 19" century, and was greatly reduced in range and numbers in the 20" century from areas as distant as Tunisia, Sudan, Germany, and Russia. Following these severe declines, there were some slight population recoveries in Russia, Italy, Spain, and Germany in the mid-20™ century, and natural and assisted range expansions in Denmark and Sweden. The species has also been inadvertently reintroduced in various locations in the Great Britain via escapees of mixed origin from commercial farming enterprises. Ex-S. scrofa stocks also occur as introduced feral populations in various other parts of the world, including Australia, New Zealand, the eastern Malay Archipelago, and in North, Central, and South America. In all of these areas they are now generally recognized as a major pest. in Suidae

Subspecies and Distribution. S. s. scrofa Linnaeus, 1758 — W Europe, from Denmark, Germany, Poland, and Czech Republic to N Italy and N Iberian Peninsula; possibly also Albania. The taxonomic status of animals in Austria, Switzerland, Slovenia, and Slovakia is unclear but presumably these populations are included in scrofa, as are the populations of Sweden, Finland, and the Baltic states. However, restocking of once depleted populations, for example in Italy, has likely involved the introduction and mixing of this subspecies with other subspecies, such as attila. S. s. affinis Gray, 1847 — S India and Sri Lanka. S. s. algirus Loche, 1867 — Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco, on the coastal side of the mountains or in the low montane areas. S. s. attila Thomas, 1912 — Hungary, Ukraine, C & S Belarus, Romania, Moldova, and S Russia towards the N flank of the Caucasus, but not including the Transcaucasian countries of Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. The range possibly extends as far S as the Mesopotamian Delta in Iraq, in which case it would likely include W & SW Iran, and possibly E Turkey and Syria, where it borders with lybicus. Such a range could not be easily reconciled with a statement by Groves that "the difference between pigs from N and S of the Caucasus is quite striking; Transcaucasian boars are certainly not attila." This subspecies may also extend into C Asia and include Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan, but no data exist to support this. S. s. baeticus Thomas, 1912 — originally described from Coto Donana, S Spain, and later merged with meridionalis; also S Portugal. Unless evidence is found that these Italian and Iberian populations are the relics of a much larger formerly contiguous range, this subspecies should be kept as distinct. S. s. coreanus Heude, 1897 — Korean Peninsula. S. s. eristatus Wagner, 1839 — Himalayas S to C India and E to Indochina (N of the Kra Isthmus). S. s. davidi Groves, 1981 — the arid zone from E Iran to Gujarat, including Pakistan and NW India, and perhaps N to Tajikistan. S. s. leucomystax Temminck, 1842 — main Is ofJapan (Honshu, Shikoku, Kyushu, Nakadori, Hiburijima, Tojima, Kushima, and other smaller Is). S. s. lybicus Gray, 1868 — Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, in the past also in Lybia, and Egypt. The former Yugoslavia was included in its range, which would suggest that now Slovenia, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Kosovo are within the range of this subspecies, although the exact boundaries are unclear. Pigs from Albania have been assigned to S. s. scrofa. S. s. majori De Beaux & Festa, 1927 — C & S Italian Peninsula. S. s. menidionalis Forsyth Major, 1882 — Corsica and Sardinia, with the proviso that the two populations are very likely to be introduced or feral. S. s. moupinensis Milne-Edwards, 1871 — China, S to Vietnam and W to Sichuan. S. s. nigripes Blanford, 1875 — the flanks of the Tianshan mountains in Kyrgyzstan and NW China (Xinjiang). An animal photographed in NE Iran (Golestan) looked like this subspecies. S. s. nukiuanus Kuroda, 1924 — Iriomote, Ishigaki, Okinawa, Tokunoshima, Amamioshima, and Kakerome Is in the Ryukyu chain in extreme S Japan, though some of these populations have hybridized with introduced domesticates. S. s. sibiricus Staffe, 1922 — Mongolia and Transbaikal (S & E of Lake Baikal). S. s. tawvanus Swinhoe, 1863 — Taiwan. S. s. ussuricus Heude, 1888 — far E Russia and the Manchurian region (China). Korean populations were previously included in this subspecies, but based on new evidence, the Korean taxon seems more similar to moupinensis. S. s. vittatus Boie, 1828 — Malay Peninsula, S of the Isthmus of Kra, the offshore islands of Terutai and Langkawi, Sumatra, Riau Archipelago, Java, Bali, and a range of smaller islands around these, including Babi, Bakong, Batam, Bawean, Bengkalis, Bintan, Bulan, Bunguran, Cuyo, Deli, Durian, Enggano, Galang, Jambongan, Karimon (Riau Is), Kundur, Lagong, Laut, Lingga, Lingung, Mapor, Moro Kecil, North Pagai, Nias, Panaitan, Payong, Penang, Pinie, Rupat, Siantan, Siberut, Simeulue, Singkep, Sugi, Sugi Bawa, Telibon, Tinggi, Tuangku, and the Tambelan Is. This species was originally present from the British Is in the extreme W, through Eurasia from S Scandinavia to S Siberia, extending as far E as Korea and Japan, and SE into some of the Sunda Is and Taiwan. In the S the species ranged along the Nile Valley to Khartoum, and N of the Sahara in Africa, more orless following the continental coasts of S, E, and SE Asia. Within this range it was absent only from extremely dry deserts, e.g. the driest regions of Mongolia and in China W of Sichuan; and alpine zones, such as the high altitudes of Pamir and Tien Shan. In recent centuries, the range of S. scrofa has changed dramatically because of hunting and changes in available habitat. The species disappeared from the British Is in the 17" century, from Denmark in the 19" century, and was greatly reduced in range and numbers in the 20" century from areas as distant as Tunisia, Sudan, Germany, and Russia. Following these severe declines, there were some slight population recoveries in Russia, Italy, Spain, and Germany in the mid-20™ century, and natural and assisted range expansions in Denmark and Sweden. The species has also been inadvertently reintroduced in various locations in the Great Britain via escapees of mixed origin from commercial farming enterprises. Ex-S. scrofa stocks also occur as introduced feral populations in various other parts of the world, including Australia, New Zealand, the eastern Malay Archipelago, and in North, Central, and South America. In all of these areas they are now generally recognized as a major pest.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2021View details →

Animal population data complementing the European Union One Health 2020 Zoonoses Report

This dataset includes animal population aggregated data under the framework of Directive 2003/99/EC. REPORTING AUTHORITIES CONTRIBUTING TO EACH DATA COLLECTION: Animal_p20_20211109: >>

Distribution. Turkey, S Russia (Daghestan and Chechnya), NE Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, N Iraq, Iran, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and SW Pakistan. A free-roaming population introduced in 1970 in SC New Mexico, USA, increased to 2000 animals, but the population is actually maintained at 500-1000 by legalized sport hunting. in Bovidae

Distribution. Turkey, S Russia (Daghestan and Chechnya), NE Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, N Iraq, Iran, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and SW Pakistan. A free-roaming population introduced in 1970 in SC New Mexico, USA, increased to 2000 animals, but the population is actually maintained at 500-1000 by legalized sport hunting.

Subspecies and Distribution. A.l.lerviaPallas,1777—Morocco,NA.l.,andNTunisia. A.l.angusiRothschild,1921—NWNiger(Air&TermitMassifs). A.l.blaineiRothschild,1913—SELybia,NEChad,andNW&NESudan(probablynowrestrictedtoRedSeahills). A.l.fassiniLepri,1930—NWLibya,extremeSTunisia. A.l.ornatus1.GeoffroySaint-Hilaire,1827—SE&SWEgypt. A. l. sahariensis Rothschild, 1913 — S Morocco, Western Sahara, NW Mauritania, S A.l ria, extreme S Libya, NE Mali, SE Niger, and NW Chad. Introduced, free-ranging populations occur in S Spain, the Canary Is, USA (California, New Mexico, and Texas), and NE Mexico. Subspecies of free-ranging introduced populations are unknown because they originate from zoo animals of uncertain origin or from hybrids. Most introduced populations are probably from subspecies lervia, derived from European zoos. The Aoudad has become a widespread invasive species. in Bovidae

Subspecies and Distribution. A.l.lerviaPallas,1777—Morocco,NA.l.,andNTunisia. A.l.angusiRothschild,1921—NWNiger(Air&TermitMassifs). A.l.blaineiRothschild,1913—SELybia,NEChad,andNW&NESudan(probablynowrestrictedtoRedSeahills). A.l.fassiniLepri,1930—NWLibya,extremeSTunisia. A.l.ornatus1.GeoffroySaint-Hilaire,1827—SE&SWEgypt. A. l. sahariensis Rothschild, 1913 — S Morocco, Western Sahara, NW Mauritania, S A.l ria, extreme S Libya, NE Mali, SE Niger, and NW Chad. Introduced, free-ranging populations occur in S Spain, the Canary Is, USA (California, New Mexico, and Texas), and NE Mexico. Subspecies of free-ranging introduced populations are unknown because they originate from zoo animals of uncertain origin or from hybrids. Most introduced populations are probably from subspecies lervia, derived from European zoos. The Aoudad has become a widespread invasive species.

Subspecies and Distribution. R.t.tarandusLinnaeus,1758—Norway. R.t.caribouGmelin,1788—SCanada(fromSYukontoLabradorandNewfoundland)andNWUSA(NEWashington,NIdaho&WMontana). R.t.fennicusLonnberg,1909—FinlandandNWRussia(Karelia). R.t.groenlandicusLinnaeus,1767—Alaska,NCanada,WGreenland. R.t.pearsoniLydekker,1903—NovayaZemlya(Russia). R.t.pearyiJ.A.Allen,1902—CanadianArcticIs. R. t. phylarchus Hollister, 1912 — Russian Far East (Amur region, Okhotsk area, Sakhalin, Kamchatka). R.t.platyrhynchusVrolik,1829—Svalbard(Norway). R.t.sibiricusMurray,1866—NSiberiantundra,RussianArcticIs. R. t. valentinae Flerov, 1933 — Ural Mts (Russia), Altai Mts, Mongolia. Feral Icelandic population originated from animals introduced from Norway in 1771; they have been introduced also into South Georgia Is (in 1911-1912 and 1925) and Kerguelen Is (in 1955). in Cervidae

Subspecies and Distribution. R.t.tarandusLinnaeus,1758—Norway. R.t.caribouGmelin,1788—SCanada(fromSYukontoLabradorandNewfoundland)andNWUSA(NEWashington,NIdaho&WMontana). R.t.fennicusLonnberg,1909—FinlandandNWRussia(Karelia). R.t.groenlandicusLinnaeus,1767—Alaska,NCanada,WGreenland. R.t.pearsoniLydekker,1903—NovayaZemlya(Russia). R.t.pearyiJ.A.Allen,1902—CanadianArcticIs. R. t. phylarchus Hollister, 1912 — Russian Far East (Amur region, Okhotsk area, Sakhalin, Kamchatka). R.t.platyrhynchusVrolik,1829—Svalbard(Norway). R.t.sibiricusMurray,1866—NSiberiantundra,RussianArcticIs. R. t. valentinae Flerov, 1933 — Ural Mts (Russia), Altai Mts, Mongolia. Feral Icelandic population originated from animals introduced from Norway in 1771; they have been introduced also into South Georgia Is (in 1911-1912 and 1925) and Kerguelen Is (in 1955).

opencc-zeroJul 2021View details →

Data from: Incorporating capture heterogeneity in the estimation of autoregressive coefficients of animal population dynamics using capture-recapture data

Population dynamics models combine density-dependence and environmental effects. Ignoring sampling uncertainty might lead to biased estimation of the strength of density-dependence. This is typically addressed using state-space model approaches, which integrate sampling error and population process estimates. Such models seldom include an explicit link between the sampling procedures and the true abundance, which is common in capture-recapture settings. However, many of the models proposed to estimate abundance in the presence of capture heterogeneity lead to incomplete likelihood functions and cannot be straightforwardly included in state-space models. We assessed the importance of estimating sampling error explicitly by taking an intermediate approach between ignoring uncertainty in abundance estimates and fully specified state-space models for density-dependence estimation based on autoregressive processes. First, we estimated individual capture probabilities based on a heterogeneity model, using a conditional multinomial likelihood, followed by a Horvitz-Thompson estimate for abundance. Second, we estimated coefficients of autoregressive models for the log abundance. Inference was performed using the methodology of integrated nested Laplace approximation (INLA). We performed an extensive simulation study to compare our approach with estimates disregarding capture history information, and using R-package VGAM, for different parameter specifications. The methods were then applied to a real dataset of gray-sided voles Myodes rufocanusfrom Northern Norway. We found that density-dependence estimation was improved when explicitly modelling sampling error in scenarios with low process variances, in which differences in coverage reached up to 8% in estimating the coefficients of the autoregressive processes. In this case, the bias also increased assuming a Poisson distribution in the observational model. For high process variances, the differences between methods were small and it appeared less important to model heterogeneity.