Description
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.
Data Records
The data in this sampling event resource has been published as a Darwin Core Archive (DwC-A), which is a standardized format for sharing biodiversity data as a set of one or more data tables. The core data table contains 2,569 records.
2 extension data tables also exist. An extension record supplies extra information about a core record. The number of records in each extension data table is illustrated below.
This IPT archives the data and thus serves as the data repository. The data and resource metadata are available for download in the downloads section. The versions table lists other versions of the resource that have been made publicly available and allows tracking changes made to the resource over time.
Versions
The table below shows only published versions of the resource that are publicly accessible.
How to cite
Researchers should cite this work as follows:
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
Rights
Researchers should respect the following rights statement:
The publisher and rights holder of this work is WCS Cambodia. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY 4.0) License.
GBIF Registration
This resource has been registered with GBIF, and assigned the following GBIF UUID: bcaaf133-5433-46ab-b2e3-a1a9f4ce84d1. WCS Cambodia publishes this resource, and is itself registered in GBIF as a data publisher endorsed by Participant Node Managers Committee.
Keywords
Occurrence; distance sampling; density surface model; Cambodia; population trends; abundance estimates; Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary; yellow-cheeked crested gibbon; black-shanked douc; Samplingevent
Contacts
- User ●
- Point Of Contact
- KSWS Biodiversity Monitoring Technical Advisor
- Originator
- Originator
- Originator
Geographic Coverage
Observations of species within the central area of Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary, Cambodia.
| Bounding Coordinates | South West [12.056, 106.407], North East [12.612, 107.299] |
|---|
Taxonomic Coverage
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) |
|---|
Temporal Coverage
| Start Date / End Date | 2010-01-01 / 2022-01-01 |
|---|
Project Data
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).
| Title | Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary |
|---|---|
| Funding | 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+) |
| Study Area Description | 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) . |
| Design Description | 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). |
The personnel involved in the project:
- Principal Investigator
Sampling Methods
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).
| Study Extent | The study area is the former core zone, an area of 1,880 km2. |
|---|---|
| Quality Control | 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. |
Method step description:
- Anon during peer-review
Additional Metadata
| Purpose | Data are collected in order to estimate wildlife populations and distributions, used to inform protected area management. |
|---|---|
| Alternative Identifiers | bcaaf133-5433-46ab-b2e3-a1a9f4ce84d1 |
| https://ipt.gbif.fr/resource?r=wcs_ksws_transect |