Estimating the proportion of Archey’s frogs in the Wharekirauponga mine vibration footprint 14 Table 7. Detection probability estimates for Archey’s frogs during nocturnal surveys. C-R is capture recapture. OM is occurrence modelling. Source Estimate Year(s) Location Method Details Plot Details p SE Capture ID Random Rep. N. Size (m) 1) 0.310 ±0.11 2004–05 Whareorino C-R Yes Photo No 3x3 1 10x10 2) 0.336 ±0.10 2018–19 Wharekirauponga & Mahakirau C-R Yes Photo Yes 3 24 10x10 3) 0.320 ±0.07 2020 Coromandel OM No No Yes 4 40 4x4 Sources: 1) Haigh et al, 2007; 2) Hotham, 2019 – data re-analysed by B. Lloyd; 3) Haigh, Stewart, Stainbury, Brown, & Fan, 2021. Table 8. Plot population estimates from nocturnal plot surveys obtained by dividing mean plot counts by an estimated detection probability (0.32). Region Veg. Type Altitude (m a.s.l.) Numbers of Expected Plot Count & SE N. in 100 m2 Plot Density Estimate Plots Counts Reps. Est. SE ha-1 (CI95%) WKP* M1, n5 100–300 59 85 1 to 3 3.58 ±0.28 11.11 ±2.09 1,111 (702 – 1,520) Crosbies M1, p2 600–700 6 29 4 to 5 0.12 ±0.06 0.37 ±6.27 37 (25 – 50) WKP N2, m6 200–400 5 10 1 to 2 0.70 ±0.37 2.17 ±1.20 217 (0 – 452) WKP N2, n3a 200–400 19 30 1 to 3 3.20 ±0.45 9.94 ±2.20 994 (563 – 1,425) Golden Cross N3a 300–400 8 23 3 1.87 ±0.52 5.81 ±0.61 581 (460 – 701) Tapu Ridge N3a, n2 500–600 2 10 5 6.13 ±0.72 19.02 ±1.27 1,902 (1,654 – 2,150) WKP Vibration Footprint 68 100 1 to 3 3.23 ±0.27 10.03 ±0.190 1,003 (632 – 1,375) * WKP - Wharekirauponga
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjE2NDg3