{"id":6716,"date":"2019-09-05T18:20:34","date_gmt":"2019-09-05T18:20:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/s808028422.mialojamiento.es\/uncategorized-hr\/workshop-1-wild-boar-abundance-and-distribution-data\/"},"modified":"2019-11-07T20:54:24","modified_gmt":"2019-11-07T20:54:24","slug":"workshop-1-wild-boar-abundance-and-distribution-data","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mammalnet.com\/hr\/workshop-1-wild-boar-abundance-and-distribution-data\/","title":{"rendered":"Workshop 1: Wild Boar Abundance And Distribution Data"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

1.- What kinds of data are usable for abundance maps (models)?
\n2.- Where are data? (especially grey\/unpublished data)
\n3.- To review networks\/stakeholders with potential to contribute
\n4.- How approaching data providers
\n5.- Inputs for the \u201chunting statistics collection frameworks\u201d
\n6.- Practical criteria for validation and quality assessment of wild boar presence data<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t

1.- What kind of data are usable for abundance maps?\u200b<\/h2>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

First step the group should collect occurrence data, i.e. presence\/absence; this could be used to develop species suitability models (SDM) for all EU countries<\/p>\n

For abundance, hunting bags are the only common data we have across Europe. It has the potential to be converted into categories of abundance<\/p>\n

We need first to see what data is available for each country: hunting statistics<\/p>\n

Are we collecting also covariate information? Covariate datasets widely available \u2013 unlikely to be limiting<\/p>\n

Validate data from different methods against measurement known to be accurate<\/p>\n

Can we come up with categories from 0-very no- very high for abundance data?<\/p>\n

Suggestions:<\/p>\n

Density map, normalized abundance, or abundance category map instead abundance map. Also produce an uncertainty map to be able to evaluate reliability of data in certain locations. Still not clear what spatial and temporal scale would be available and needed for risk assessment, but multi-scale data collection should be fine<\/p>\n

Aggregated presence to give proportion area present<\/p>\n

When recording hunting bags\/density, we should be careful with the following elements: what is the area from which the hunting bag comes from? (forest area, or all land area ?); which hunting method is used: driven\/silent\/fenced? What is the time of density estimate: before or after reproduction?<\/p>\n

In any case categories should correspond to numerical ranges of abundance since it is needed quantitative information.<\/p>\n

Data may occur at four levels:<\/p>\n

Single spot: Georeferenced shooting of boar (e.g. northern Belgium and study in Brandenburg); camera traps, killed on roads data (Slovenia, Czech Republic, part of Netherlands); App-based recording (Netherlands, Belgium) \u2013 needs a web search to find others. Also ASF submissions<\/p>\n

Grid: Slovenia, Finland and Norway report wild boar hunting in small grid (e.g. 1km2)<\/p>\n

Hunting ground: Hunting areas vary from 100ha to 4000ha. Bag numbers reported are a minimum shot, also poaching nos. unknown. Also need to record \u2013 are quotas set (reporting will always be within quota!), how are they set, has this varied between years, and what is the intended aim of hunting quota \u2013 the political angle. For example Poland sets exact quota per hunting ground, but has increased this this year to \u2018eradicate\u2019 wild boar<\/p>\n

Regional level: aggregated and summarized information (raw data are not recorded)<\/p>\n

Data need to be over the last five years, possibly more if available.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t

2. Where are data?\u200b<\/h2>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t