Influence of temporary emigration on wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) detectability, with implications for abundance estimation

PLoS One. 2024 Apr 16;19(4):e0302170. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302170. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

Reliable population estimates are important for making informed management decisions about wildlife species. Standardized survey protocols have been developed for monitoring population trends of the wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta), a semi-aquatic freshwater turtle species of conservation concern throughout its distribution in east-central North America. The protocols use repeated active search surveys of defined areas, allowing for estimation of survey-specific detection probability (p) and site-specific abundance. These protocols assume population closure within the survey area during the survey period, which is unlikely to be met as wood turtles are a highly mobile species. Additionally, current protocols use a single-pass design that does not allow for separation of availability (pa) and detectability (pd). If there are systematic influences on pa or pd that are not accounted for in the survey design or data analysis, then resulting abundance estimates could be biased. The objectives of this study were to determine if pa is a random process and if pa and pd are influenced by demographic characteristics. We modified the wood turtle survey protocol used in the upper Midwest to include a double-pass design, allowing us to estimate pa and pd using a robust design capture-recapture model. The modified protocol was implemented at 14 wood turtle monitoring sites in Minnesota and Wisconsin between 2017 and 2022. Our results indicated that pa was non-random and that pd increased with turtle carapace length. Our study suggests that model assumptions for current wood turtle population models may be violated, likely resulting in an overestimation of abundance. We discuss possible protocol and modeling modifications that could result in more accurate wood turtle abundance estimates.

MeSH terms

  • Animals
  • Animals, Wild
  • Fresh Water
  • Minnesota
  • North America
  • Turtles*

Grants and funding

Funding for data collection was provided by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources through a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Competitive State Wildlife Grant (#F14AP00028; RAM and DJB) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources through a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act grant (#F21AP00170; AFB and DJB). Funding for data analysis was provided by the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission through a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Competitive State Wildlife Grant (#4100091099; DJB and CML). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.