Dataset Information

Population Estimation Methods for Free-Ranging Dogs: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: The understanding of the structure of free-roaming dog populations is of extreme importance for the planning and monitoring of populational control strategies and animal welfare. The methods used to estimate the abundance of this group of dogs are more complex than the ones used with domiciled owned dogs. In this systematic review, we analyze the techniques and the results obtained in studies that seek to estimate the size of free-ranging dog populations. Twenty-six studies were reviewed regarding the quality of execution and their capacity to generate valid estimates. Seven of the eight publications that take a simple count of the animal population did not consider the different probabilities of animal detection; only one study used methods based on distances; twelve relied on capture-recapture models for closed populations without considering heterogeneities in capture probabilities; six studies applied their own methods with different potential and limitations. Potential sources of bias in the studies were related to the inadequate description or implementation of animal capturing or viewing procedures and to inadequacies in the identification and registration of dogs. Thus, there was a predominance of estimates with low validity. Abundance and density estimates carried high variability, and all studies identified a greater number of male dogs. We point to enhancements necessary for the implementation of future studies and to potential updates and revisions to the recommendations of the World Health Organization with respect to the estimation of free-ranging dog populations.

SUBMITTER: Belo VS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4684217 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMeasuring the size of free roaming dog populations quickly and accurately is critical in the implementation of numerous preventive health and population control interventions. However, few studies have investigated the relative performance of population size assessment tools when applied to dogs. The aim of this study was to compare the commonly used mark-resight methodology with distance sampling methods, which are less resource intensive, to estimate free-roaming dog abundance in Goa, India. Twenty-six working zones were surveyed along all roads twice by the same surveyor at the same time of day, following a vaccination campaign which included marking of vaccinated dogs with a coloured paint. The Chapman estimate was then used to evaluate the mark-resight abundance. Additionally, the number of dogs and perpendicular distance from the road for all dogs sighted was recorded. This was used to estimate dog density and abundance using distance sampling methods. The detection function was fitted based on goodness-of-fit and AIC.ResultsThe Chapman abundance estimate for the entire study area was 5202 dogs (95%CI 4733.8-5671.0), and the distance sampling method abundance estimate was 5067 dogs (95%CI 4454.3-5764.2). For individual working zones, after taking other factors into account in a mixed effects model, the average distance sampling estimate was 35% higher (95%CI 20-53%) than the Chapman estimate. There was also evidence of a difference in estimates between surveyors of 21% (95%CI 7-37%) and between days (22% lower on day 2, 95%CI 8-38%) for individual working zones.ConclusionOur study demonstrated that the distance sampling estimates were comparable overall to the Chapman method of abundance estimation of free roaming dogs across the entire study region but there was noticeable variation between the two methods when individual zones were compared. Consequently, distance sampling methods may be suitable to enumerate dogs over large areas in a more time efficient manner than the widely used mark-resight approach.

Dataset Information

Population Estimation Methods for Free-Ranging Dogs: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets