# The accuracy of capture per unit effort in predicting density of a cryptic snake was more sensitive to reductions in spatial than temporal coverage

## TL;DR

This study shows that predicting the density of cryptic brown treesnakes using capture per unit effort is more affected by how much area is sampled than how long the sampling lasts.

## Contribution

The study reveals that spatial coverage is more critical than temporal coverage for accurate CPUE-based density estimates in cryptic snake populations.

## Key findings

- Trap CPUE showed no statistical relationship to snake density.
- Visual survey CPUE predicted density accurately with sufficient spatial and temporal sampling.
- Reducing spatial coverage below 50% rapidly decreased CPUE accuracy and precision.

## Abstract

A critical component of monitoring wildlife populations is understanding changes in population size or abundance. However, for most populations a complete census is not possible; thus, trends or abundance need to be estimated through alternative means, such as indexes. An important aspect of using indexes, such as capture per unit effort (CPUE), is validating them as accurate or precise predictors of population trends or abundance. We completed such analyses using data collected from visual surveys and trapping for brown treesnakes (Boiga irregularis) within a 5-ha enclosure that was undergoing a continuous population decline. During a ~ 6-year period, we censused and marked the snake population to fully enumerated the population, with new individuals resulting from births and removals resulting only from mortality (natural or experimental). From trapping and visual surveys, we were also able to calculate CPUE as a function of trap nights or km surveyed and used regressions to forecast snake density (snakes/km) in the enclosure from CPUE. We also rarefied the true dataset to measure whether reductions in sampling intensity, either temporally or spatially, affected the accuracy or precision in predicting snake density from CPUE. We found that trap CPUE demonstrated no statistical relationship to density based on our study methods. CPUE during visual surveys did predict actual density, with sufficient spatial and temporal sampling intensity. CPUE from visual surveys was relatively robust against reductions in temporal sampling when spatial intensity remained high. However, reductions in the spatial area covered to less than 50% of the enclosure rapidly reduced the accuracy and precision in using CPUE to forecast density. Our results indicate that visual surveys are a relatively accurate measure of true density for brown treesnakes, given sufficient spatial sampling effort. The spatial area of coverage required for CPUE to accurately predict changes in abundance was, however, intense with > 50% of the spatial area required to be sampled on a given sampling night. Our results indicate that CPUE is only reliable as an index of abundance or population trends for cryptic snakes, if sampling effort covers most of the landscape over which populations are being estimated.