appendix iii tosonkhulstai_monitoringpresentation
DESCRIPTION
Monitoring result of TosonkhulstaiTRANSCRIPT
Measuring Conservation Efforts: Developing a monitoring program for Tosonkhulstai Nature Reserve
Tuguldor E. The Nature ConservancyKirk A. Olson University of Massachusetts/National University of Mongolia
No form of wildlife management,
Whether it is the establishment of
cropping or hunting quotas, the
development of tourism, or the
demarcation of boundaries is
possible without reliable information
on the numbers, population
dynamics, and movements of the
animals concerned.
Mike Norton‐Griffiths
Counting Animals, 1978
Objectives
1. To facilitate participatory analysis of
1.1. Condition of species/resources and conservation values, and changes over time
1.2. “systems” and key ecological attributes
1.3. Stresses and sources of stresses on systems
1.4. Key threats on systems
1.5. Linkages of livelihood and natural resources/biodiversity
2. To develop, with local communities and governments, local strategies to reduce threats
3. To compile baseline data on socio‐economy, livestock production and weather patterns, and changes over time.
May 2008Household and community consultations were conducted by the New Zealand Nature Institute
Conservation Action Planning Workshop CAP II
1960 -1975 1976-
1990 1990-2000 2001-
2008 2009 -2020
marmot
gazelle
adag oasis
sumber salt marsh
salt
dund oasis
01234567
marmot gazelle adag oasis sumber salt marsh salt dund oasis
Major strategies center around:
1. Climate Change mitigation and adaptation in livestock herding.
2. Improved planning and implementation of pastureland and water resources management – bag/soum level, community/household level. Related to climate change impacts, and to changes in livestock production (very large herds, outsiders livestock/horses, loss of traditional seasonal moves)
•Community organization•Agreements (soum/aimag level) on “otor” movements•Limitations on livestock numbers, particularly livestock of absentee herders, race horse owners etc. •Improving livestock products/value addition/marketing, as opposed to increasing numbers
3. Law Enforcement and good governance
4. Education/Training and Public Awareness
5. Improving stakeholder cooperation, co‐management, public and community participation, community organization
Improved vigilance by rangers working in the reserve will lead to an increase in wildlife abundance, particularly those that are hunted for meat or pelts.
Hypothesis:
Selected Target Species:
Mongolian gazelle
Siberian marmot
Corsac fox
Red fox
Is it possible to develop an easy to implement, cost effective monitoring program for these target species?
Marmots:
Compare line transect sampling and area sampling methodology
Carnivores:
Use baited scent stations to develop a record of proportion of stations visited.
13 Parallel Transects, 9.5 km’s apart
356 km’s
9.5 – 47.5 km’s length
Line Transects
176 burrow clusters
Burrow cluster 2.5± 1.9SD active burrows
0.5± 1.0SDInactive burrows
How does distance sampling work?
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Perpendicular distance in meters
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0 50 100 150 200 250
Perpendicular distance in meters
How does distance sampling work?
Cell Cut Observed Expected Chi‐squarePoints Values Values Values
1 0.000 8.33 37 35.29 0.0832 8.33 16.7 29 30.24 0.0513 16.7 25.0 24 22.75 0.0694 25.0 33.3 11 15.97 1.5485 33.3 41.7 14 11.55 0.5186 41.7 50.0 11 9.13 0.3827 50.0 58.3 7 7.47 0.0308 58.3 66.7 5 5.73 0.0939 66.7 75.0 4 3.86 0.005
Estimate %CV df 95% Confidence Interval‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐n 142.00 k 13.000 L 356.30 n/L 0.39854 23.07 0.24264 0.65461 Left 0.0000Width 75.000
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Perpendicular distance in meters
Table 1. Population statistics estimated from line transect surveys and extrapolation to the number of marmots from scan sampling results reported by Winters (2010). ___________________________________________________________________________
Point Parameter Estimate SE % CV 95% Conf. Interval
____________________ _____________________________________________________
Estimated Cluster Size 2.32 0.15 6 2.04 – 2.63
Density of burrows 14.1 3.7 26 8.3 – 24.1
N (Burrow clusters) 28,041 16,549 – 47,349
N (Marmots)* 47,951 28,298 – 80,966 ___________________________________________________________________________* Derived from Winters (2010) estimation of 1.71 marmots/cluster
Density of Clusters 6.1 1.5 25 3.6 – 10.3
N (Burrow clusters) 28,041 16,549 – 47,349
We still have more field work to do,
So have another beer!
665 Km sq. area
245 75 x 75 m quadrats every 2 km’s
AREA SAMPLING
Table 4. Results from quadrat sampling in areas in TosonkhulstaiNature Reserve believed to have high concentrations of marmot burrow clusters. Population total here refers to estimate number of active burrow clusters.__________________________________________
Population total Y 13,428Population variance Var(Y) 1,279Standard error SE(Y) 4,69195% Confidence limits of (Y) ±9,19595% Confidence limits as% of (Y) 68%Density (burrow clusters/km2) 20__________________________________________
90 cm
• 24 % of untreated stations were visited
• 31 % of treated stations were visited
• 22% of treated stations had sign of ‘Fox’
• 16% of untreated stations had sign of ‘Fox’
• 07% of of untreated stations had ferret sign
• 09% of treated stations had ferret sign
• 2 of the untreated sites had hedgehog visits
Recommendations
Double survey effort for line transects;
Conduct line transect survey along an east – west axis;
Continue to improve quadrat sampling by reducing the size of the known marmot regions ;
Use camera traps to positively ID visitations;
Increase sample size ;
Compare between seasons.
THANK YOU, NOW HAVE ANOTHER BEER
and ENJOY SANJA’S PRESENTATION!!!