Long-term monitoring of primate, bird, and ungulate populations 2010-2022 for protected area management, Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary, Cambodia

DwC-A資料集	下載 2,569 紀錄在 English 中 (198 KB) - 更新頻率: 需要時
元數據EML檔	下載在 English 中 (18 KB)
元數據RTF文字檔	下載在 English 中 (15 KB)

說明

Observations of 13 key species over 12 years in Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary, Cambodia, recorded during standardized line transect surveys. Distance sampling and density surface models are used to analyze this data and produce population estimates.

資料紀錄

此資源sampling event的資料已發佈為達爾文核心集檔案（DwC-A），其以一或多組資料表構成分享生物多樣性資料的標準格式。核心資料表包含 2,569 筆紀錄。

亦存在 2 筆延伸集的資料表。延伸集中的紀錄補充核心集中紀錄的額外資訊。每個延伸集資料表中資料筆數顯示如下。

2569

5420

此 IPT 存放資料以提供資料儲存庫服務。資料與資源的詮釋資料可由「下載」單元下載。「版本」表格列出此資源的其它公開版本，以便利追蹤其隨時間的變更。

版本

以下的表格只顯示可公開存取資源的已發布版本。

如何引用

研究者應依照以下指示引用此資源。:

Agger C, Griffin O, Nuttall M, O'Kelly H (2022): Long-term monitoring of primate, bird, and ungulate populations 2010-2022 for protected area management, Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary, Cambodia. v1.8. WCS Cambodia. Dataset/Samplingevent. https://ipt.gbif.fr/resource?r=wcs_ksws_transect&v=1.8

權利

研究者應尊重以下權利聲明。:

此資料的發布者及權利單位為 WCS Cambodia。 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY 4.0) License.

GBIF 註冊

此資源已向GBIF註冊，並指定以下之GBIF UUID: bcaaf133-5433-46ab-b2e3-a1a9f4ce84d1。 WCS Cambodia 發佈此資源，並經由Participant Node Managers Committee同意向GBIF註冊成為資料發佈者。

關鍵字

Occurrence; distance sampling; density surface model; Cambodia; population trends; abundance estimates; Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary; yellow-cheeked crested gibbon; black-shanked douc; Samplingevent

聯絡資訊

Cain Agger

元數據提供者 ●
出處 ●
使用者 ●
連絡人

KSWS Biodiversity Monitoring Technical Advisor

WCS Cambodia

Olly Griffin

出處

WCS Cambodia

Matt Nuttall

出處

Hannah O'Kelly

出處

地理涵蓋範圍

Observations of species within the central area of Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary, Cambodia.

界定座標範圍	緯度南界經度西界 [12.056, 106.407], 緯度北界經度東界 [12.612, 107.299]

分類群涵蓋範圍

Black-shanked douc (Pygathrix nigripes), southern yellow-cheeked crested gibbon (Nomascus gabriellae), Germain's silver langur (Trachypithecus germaini), long-tailed macaque (Macaca fascicularis), northern pig-tailed macaque (Macaca leonina), stump-tailed macaque (Macaca arctoides), green peafowl (Pavo muticus), wild pig (Sus scrofa), northern red muntjac (Muntiacus vaginalis), banteng (Bos javanicus), gaur (Bos gaurus), Eld's deer (Rucervus eldii), sambar (Rusa unicolor). Records for banteng, gaur, Eld's deer, and sambar are not published here due to risk of poaching, but are available on request where appropriate.

Species	Sus scrofa (Wild pig), Muntiacus vaginalis (Northern red muntjac), Pygathrix nigripes (Black-shanked douc), Pavo muticus (Green peafowl), Trachypithecus germaini (Germain's silver langur), Macaca leonina (Northern pig-tailed macaque), Nomascus gabriellae (Southern yellow-cheeked crested gibbon), Macaca fascicularis (Long-tailed macaque), Rusa unicolor (Sambar), Macaca arctoides (Stump-tailed macaque), Rucervus eldii (Eld's deer), Bos gaurus (Gaur), Bos javanicus (Banteng)

Species

Sus scrofa (Wild pig), Muntiacus vaginalis (Northern red muntjac), Pygathrix nigripes (Black-shanked douc), Pavo muticus (Green peafowl), Trachypithecus germaini (Germain's silver langur), Macaca leonina (Northern pig-tailed macaque), Nomascus gabriellae (Southern yellow-cheeked crested gibbon), Macaca fascicularis (Long-tailed macaque), Rusa unicolor (Sambar), Macaca arctoides (Stump-tailed macaque), Rucervus eldii (Eld's deer), Bos gaurus (Gaur), Bos javanicus (Banteng)

時間涵蓋範圍

起始日期 / 結束日期	2010-01-01 / 2022-01-01

計畫資料

Long-term technical, operational, and financial support to the Royal Government of Cambodia for effective management of Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary (previously Seima Biodiversity Conservation Area, Seima Protection Forest).

計畫名稱	Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary
經費來源	United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Agence Française de Développement (AFD), US Fish and Wildlife Service, GEF-5 (CAMPAS), Royal Government of Cambodia Keo Seima REDD+ (KSWS REDD+)
研究區域描述	Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary (12.3346, 106.8418, formerly Seima Biodiversity Conservation Area and Seima Protection Forest) falls within Mondulkiri and Kratie provinces in eastern Cambodia, shares its southeastern edge with Vietnam, and has an area of 2,927 km2 (Fig. 1). The study area is the former core zone, an area of 1,880 km2 (Fig. 1). KSWS is characterized by a diverse mosaic of habitats; the southeastern area extends into the Southern Annamite Mountain Range with higher altitudinal mountainous topography, and dense evergreen and semi-evergreen forest (Evans et al. 2013). The central and western areas form the edge of the Eastern Plains Landscape, which is dominated by low altitudes and dry deciduous dipterocarp forests (O’Kelly et al. 2012; Evans et al. 2013). Complementing the altitudinal and habitat gradients are semi-natural grasslands and seasonal and permanent water bodies that together support rich biodiversity (Nuttall et al. 2017) .
研究設計描述	Data were collected jointly by the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and the Forestry Administration of the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) between 2010 and 2016, and by WCS and the Ministry of Environment of the RGC in 2018 to 2022. Square line transects of 4 km length were arranged throughout KSWS in a systematic grid with a random start point, and field teams conducted distance sampling surveys along the 40 line transects in 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020. Field teams recorded visual observations of 11 species that were listed as threatened on the IUCN Red List, or were easily detected on line transects, or both (see Table 1 for species and name abbreviations). Laser rangefinders and compasses were used to measure distances and angles from the line transect to detected objects, which constituted either isolated individuals or spatially aggregated individuals (clusters), and cluster sizes were recorded. Distances were measured to the geometric center of clusters. Perpendicular distances from detected objects to the line transect were calculated prior to analysis. Field protocols followed standard line transect methodology outlined in Buckland et al. (2001) and were consistent between years. For further details of field protocols see Supporting Information, O’Kelly et al. (2012), and Nuttall et al. (2017).

參與計畫的人員:

Olly Griffin

研究主持人

Cain Agger

Matt Nuttall

Hannah O'Kelly

取樣方法

Data were collected jointly by the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and the Forestry Administration of the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) between 2010 and 2016, and by WCS and the Ministry of Environment of the RGC in 2018 and 2020. Square line transects of 4 km length were arranged throughout KSWS in a systematic grid with a random start point, and field teams conducted distance sampling surveys along the 40 line transects in 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020. Field teams recorded visual observations of 11 species that were listed as threatened on the IUCN Red List, or were easily detected on line transects, or both (see Table 1 for species and name abbreviations). Laser rangefinders and compasses were used to measure distances and angles from the line transect to detected objects, which constituted either isolated individuals or spatially aggregated individuals (clusters), and cluster sizes were recorded. Distances were measured to the geometric center of clusters. Perpendicular distances from detected objects to the line transect were calculated prior to analysis. Field protocols followed standard line transect methodology outlined in Buckland et al. (2001) and were consistent between years. For further details of field protocols see Supporting Information, O’Kelly et al. (2012), and Nuttall et al. (2017).

研究範圍	The study area is the former core zone, an area of 1,880 km2.
品質控管	Square line transects can potentially cause detection bias around the corners, as animals on the inner side of the corner could be detected twice. Although double-counting does not in itself violate distance-sampling assumptions, bias may arise if the two sightings are non-independent, for example if the second sighting occurs because animals are still present at the location of the first sighting. To assess whether there was evidence of corner-bias in our data, we tested for differences in density of observations between corner areas and non-corner areas. The corner samples were obtained from all transect sections within 50 m of a corner, and the non-corner samples were obtained by two methods: firstly as all transect sections not within 50 m of a corner; and secondly by using 50 m transect sections around each of 1000 randomly-selected points, discarding any that overlapped with corner areas. For either method, observation density was calculated for the corner and non-corner samples and compared using a t-test. Neither method resulted in a significant difference in observation density between corner areas and non-corner areas, so no further action was taken to address corner effects. For 2010 and 2011 data, the time was not collected for observations, so linking observations to morning or evening events was not possible. Instead, the two events on a single date (morning and evening) were grouped, giving a higher total effort, and all observations for that date were assigned to the single event. This makes not difference to distance sampling analysis, but is noted to explain the apparent higher effort per event from those years. In fact, daily effort is generally equal across all years, but subdivided from 2013 onwards.

研究範圍

The study area is the former core zone, an area of 1,880 km2.

品質控管

Square line transects can potentially cause detection bias around the corners, as animals on the inner side of the corner could be detected twice. Although double-counting does not in itself violate distance-sampling assumptions, bias may arise if the two sightings are non-independent, for example if the second sighting occurs because animals are still present at the location of the first sighting. To assess whether there was evidence of corner-bias in our data, we tested for differences in density of observations between corner areas and non-corner areas. The corner samples were obtained from all transect sections within 50 m of a corner, and the non-corner samples were obtained by two methods: firstly as all transect sections not within 50 m of a corner; and secondly by using 50 m transect sections around each of 1000 randomly-selected points, discarding any that overlapped with corner areas. For either method, observation density was calculated for the corner and non-corner samples and compared using a t-test. Neither method resulted in a significant difference in observation density between corner areas and non-corner areas, so no further action was taken to address corner effects. For 2010 and 2011 data, the time was not collected for observations, so linking observations to morning or evening events was not possible. Instead, the two events on a single date (morning and evening) were grouped, giving a higher total effort, and all observations for that date were assigned to the single event. This makes not difference to distance sampling analysis, but is noted to explain the apparent higher effort per event from those years. In fact, daily effort is generally equal across all years, but subdivided from 2013 onwards.

方法步驟描述:

Anon during peer-review

額外的詮釋資料

目的	Data are collected in order to estimate wildlife populations and distributions, used to inform protected area management.
替代的識別碼	bcaaf133-5433-46ab-b2e3-a1a9f4ce84d1
	https://ipt.gbif.fr/resource?r=wcs_ksws_transect