Testing the Accuracy of Aerial Surveys for Large Mammals: An Experiment with African Savanna Elephants (Loxodonta africana)

Accurate counts of animals are critical for prioritizing conservation efforts. Past research, however, suggests that observers on aerial surveys may fail to detect all individuals of the target species present in the survey area. Such errors could bias population estimates low and confound trend estimation. We used two approaches to assess the accuracy of aerial surveys for African savanna elephants (Loxodonta africana) in northern Botswana. First, we used double-observer sampling, in which two observers make observations on the same herds, to estimate detectability of elephants and determine what variables affect it. Second, we compared total counts, a complete survey of the entire study area, against sample counts, in which only a portion of the study area is sampled. Total counts are often considered a complete census, so comparing total counts against sample counts can help to determine if sample counts are underestimating elephant numbers. We estimated that observers detected only 76% ± SE of 2% of elephant herds and 87 ± 1% of individual elephants present in survey strips. Detectability increased strongly with elephant herd size. Out of the four observers used in total, one observer had a lower detection probability than the other three, and detectability was higher in the rear row of seats than the front. The habitat immediately adjacent to animals also affected detectability, with detection more likely in more open habitats. Total counts were not statistically distinguishable from sample counts. Because, however, the double-observer samples revealed that observers missed 13% of elephants, we conclude that total counts may be undercounting elephants as well. These results suggest that elephant population estimates from both sample and total counts are biased low. Because factors such as observer and habitat affected detectability of elephants, comparisons of elephant populations across time or space may be confounded. We encourage survey teams to incorporate detectability analysis in all aerial surveys for mammals

Network analysis of sea turtle movements and connectivity: A tool for conservation prioritization

This is the final version. Available on open access from Wiley via the DOI in this recordData availability statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available in the Supplementary Material of this article and Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5898578). Details for all animals included in this study are provided in Appendices S1 and S2. Data used to create the spatial networks are listed in the Appendices S3 and S4. The geospatial files for all networks are available on the Migratory Connectivity in the Ocean Project website (https://mico.eco) and Dryad (https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.j3tx95xg9). Additional data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.Aim Understanding the spatial ecology of animal movements is a critical element in conserving long-lived, highly mobile marine species. Analyzing networks developed from movements of six sea turtle species reveals marine connectivity and can help prioritize conservation efforts. Location Global. Methods We collated telemetry data from 1235 individuals and reviewed the literature to determine our dataset's representativeness. We used the telemetry data to develop spatial networks at different scales to examine areas, connections, and their geographic arrangement. We used graph theory metrics to compare networks across regions and species and to identify the role of important areas and connections. Results Relevant literature and citations for data used in this study had very little overlap. Network analysis showed that sampling effort influenced network structure, and the arrangement of areas and connections for most networks was complex. However, important areas and connections identified by graph theory metrics can be different than areas of high data density. For the global network, marine regions in the Mediterranean had high closeness, while links with high betweenness among marine regions in the South Atlantic were critical for maintaining connectivity. Comparisons among species-specific networks showed that functional connectivity was related to movement ecology, resulting in networks composed of different areas and links. Main conclusions Network analysis identified the structure and functional connectivity of the sea turtles in our sample at multiple scales. These network characteristics could help guide the coordination of management strategies for wide-ranging animals throughout their geographic extent. Most networks had complex structures that can contribute to greater robustness but may be more difficult to manage changes when compared to simpler forms. Area-based conservation measures would benefit sea turtle populations when directed toward areas with high closeness dominating network function. Promoting seascape connectivity of links with high betweenness would decrease network vulnerability.International Climate Initiative (IKI)German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU

Development and validation of the Glasgow epilepsy outcome scale (GEOS): A new instrument for measuring concerns about epilepsy in people with mental retardation

PURPOSE: To develop a measure for use with adults with epilepsy and mental retardation, capable of assessing both clinical and care concerns and of quantifying treatment outcomes. METHODS: Extensive validational and other psychometric evaluation was undertaken, comprising initial scale development work with 48 carers and 46 health practitioners, followed by formal field testing on a sample of 186 patients, using 384 respondents (160 clinicians, 141 staff, 83 family). Recognised qualitative methods were applied to identify central themes, and psychometric procedures generated data on validity, reliability, and component structure. RESULTS: A total of 1,007 items of concern was generated, which was reduced systematically to a representative set of 90 items. The GEOS-90 comprises four subscales: concerns about "seizures," "treatment," "caring," and "social impact," each explaining approximately 70% of variance. Subscales and factor scales had strong internal consistency (alpha > or = 0.82). Stepwise linear regression was applied to derive a short-form version with similar structure. Thirty-five items were retained (GEOS-35; alpha > or = 0.89). Both scales discriminated moderately on clinical variables (number of seizure types, mono- vs. polytherapy, seizure frequency; all values of p < 0.05) and demonstrated concurrent validity with interview ratings from the ELDQOL (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The GEOS scales appear valid and reliable for use with clinical populations of people with mental retardation