Submitted:
27 January 2026
Posted:
28 January 2026
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Transect Design and Sampling Strategy
2.3. Data Collected
2.3. Data Analyses
3. Results
4. Discussion

5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| IUCN | International Union for Conservation of Nature | NT | Near Threatened |
| LT | Line Transect | CT | Camera Trap |
| LTDS | Line transect distance sampling | CTDS | Camera trap distance sampling |
| DS | Distance sampling | AIC | Akaike’s Information Criterion) |
| P | Probability of observing an object in the area | f(0) | pdf value at zero for LT |
| D(S) | Estimate of the density of clusters | D | Estimate of the density of animals |
| E(S) | Expected cluster size | M(S) | Mean cluster size |
| ER | Encounter rate of animals | ESW | Effective strip width for LT |
| N | Estimate of the number of animals in the area | CV | Coefficient Variation |
| CI | Confidence Interval | SE | Standard Error |
References
- Weinberg, P.; Jdeidi, T.; Masseti, M.; Nader, I.; de Smet, K; Cuzin, F. Capra aegagrus (Mediterranean assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T3786A10076391. Accessed on 06 November 2025.
- Macar, O.; Gürkan, B. Observations on the behavior of wild Goat (Capra aegagrus, Erxleben 1777). Hacettepe J. Biol. Chem. 2009, 37, 13–21. [Google Scholar]
- Ekinci, H.; Suel, H. Population size and structure of Wild Goat (Capra aegagrus, Erxleben); Example of Lakes Region. Science and Technique in the 21st Century 2023, 10, 40–46. [Google Scholar]
- Turan, N. Antalya-TermesosYabanKeçisi (Capra aegagrusaegagrus L.) PopulasyonununGelişimi, BugünküDurumuveSorunları; Türkiyeve Balkan ÜlkelerindeYabanHayatıSempozyumu: İstanbul, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Demirsoy, A. YaşamınTemelKuralları, Omurgalılar / Amniyota (Sürgünler, KuşlarveMemeliler), 1st ed.; Meteksan A.Ş.: Ankara, 1992; Volume III, pp. 1–942. ISBN 975-7746-08-8. [Google Scholar]
- Çanakçıoğlu, H.; Mol, T. YabanHayvanlarıBilgisi; İstanbul ÜniversitesiYayınları, İstanbul ÜniversitesiRektörlüğüBasımevive Film MerkeziMüdürlüğü: İstanbul, 1996; pp. 1–550. [Google Scholar]
- Kence, A.; Ozut, D.; Balkız, O. Armenian mouflon survey in eastern Türkiye and Nakhticevan. In Caprinae News; Canada, 2002; pp. 1–2. [Google Scholar]
- Koohestani, M.; Naderi, S.; Shadloo, S. Evaluation of habitat quality and determining the distribution of Wild goat (Capra aegagrus) in Roodbarak prohibited hunting region, Kelardasht, Iran. Casp. J. Environ. Sci. 2022, 20, 863–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zenbilci, M.; Özdemir, S.; Çıvğa, A.; Ünal, Y.; Oğurlu, İ. Habitat suitability modeling of wild goat (Capra aegagrusErxleben, 1777) in different periods. Šumar. List. 2024, 148, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carbone, C.; Gittleman, J.L. A common rule for the scaling of carnivore density. Science 2002, 295, 2273–2276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karanth, K.U.; Nichols, J.D.; Kumar, N.S.; Link, W.A.; Hines, J.E. Tigers and Their Prey: Predicting Carnivore Densities from Prey Abundance. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 2004, 101, 4854–4858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basak, K.; Suraj, M.; Ahmed, M.; Kumar, U.; Bhattacharjee, S. The first attempt to assess the population status of large predators and their prey in an unexplored central Indian Protected Area. Wildl. Lett. 2023, 1, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.W.; Macdonald, D.W. Feeding Habits and Niche Partitioning in a Predator Guild Composed of Tigers, Leopards, and Dholes in a Temperate Ecosystem in Central Bhutan. J. Zool. 2009, 277, 275–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldsmith, B. Monitoring for conservation and ecology, 1st ed.; Chapman & Hall: London, 1991; p. p. 275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plumptre, A.J.; Cox, D. Counting primates for conservation: primate surveys in Uganda. Primates 2006, 47, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Leca, J.B.; Gunst, N.; Rompis, A.; Soma, G.; Putra, I.G.A.A.; Wandia, I.N. Population Density and Abundance of Ebony Leaf Monkeys (Trachypithecusauratus) in West Bali National Park, Indonesia. Primate Conserv. 2013, 26, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.; Gong, P.; Wang, J.; Clinton, N.; Bai, Y.; Liang, S. Annual dynamics of global land cover and its long-term changes from 1982 to 2015, link to GeoTIFF files, [dataset]; PANGAEA, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, L.; Buckland, S. T.; Rexstad, E. A.; Laake, J. L.; Strindberg, S.; Hedley, S. L.; Bishop, J. R. B.; Marques, T. A.; Burnham, K. P. Distance software: design and analysis of distance sampling surveys for estimating population size. J. Appl. Ecol. 2010, 47, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glass, R.; Forsyth, D.M.; Coulson, G.; Bianchet, M. F. Precision, accuracy, and bias of walked line-transect distance sampling to estimate eastern grey kangaroo population size. Wildl. Res. 2015, 42, 633–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rowcliffe, J.M.; Field, J.; Turvey, S.T.; Carbone, C. Estimating animal density using camera traps without the need for individual recognition. J. App. Ecol. 2008, 45, 1228–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilbert, N.A.; Clare, J.D.J.; Stenglein, J.L.; Zuckerberg, B. Abundance estimation of unmarked animals based on camera-trap data. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 35, 88–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mason, S.S.; Hill, R.A.; Whittingham, M.J.; Cokill, J.; Smith, G.C.; Stephens, P.A. Camera trap distance sampling for terrestrial mammal population monitoring: Lessons learnt from a UK case study. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 2022, 8, 717–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ancrenaz, M.; Hearn, A.; Ross, J.; Sollmann, R.; Wilting, A. Handbook for Wildlife Monitoring using Camera Traps; BBEC II Secretariat: Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- McCallum, J. Changing use of camera traps in mammalian field research: habitats, taxa, and study types. Mammal Rev. 2013, 43, 196–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rovero, F.; Zimmermann, F.; Berzi, D.; Meek, P. “Which camera trap type and how many do I need?” A review of camera features and study designs for a range of wildlife research applications. Hystrix It. J. Mamm. 2013, 24, 148–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burton, A.C.; Neilson, E.; Moreira, D.; Ladle, A.; Steenweg, R.; Fisher, J.T.; et al. REVIEW: wildlife camera trapping: a review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes. J. Appl. Ecol. 2015, 52, 675–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meek, P.D.; Ballard, G.A.; Fleming, P.J.S. The Pitfalls of Wildlife Camera Trapping as a Survey Tool in Australia. Aust. Mammal. 2015, 37, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delisle, Z.J.; Miller, D.L.; Swihart, R.K. Modelling density surfaces of intraspecific classes using camera trap distance sampling. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2023, 14, 1287–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serez, M. Geyik, Karaca, Alageyik, YabankeçisiveYabankoyunlarındaYaşTayiniYöntemi. KTÜ J. For. Res. 1981, 4(1), 214–219. [Google Scholar]
- Balkız, Ö. TermessosveKaçkarDağıMilliParklarındaBilimselÇevreEğitimi. BilimveTeknik-TÜBİTAK 2001, 34–35. [Google Scholar]
- Arpacık, A.; Sarı, A. Yabankeçisi (Capra aegagrusErxleben, 1777)’nindiyetinioluşturanbazıodunsubitkitürleri: Giresun, Çamolukörneği. J. For. Res. 2022, 9, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gündoğdu, E. Population Ecology of Wild Goat Capra aegagrusErxleben 1777 in Isparta, Turkey. Phd Thesis, SüleymanDemirel University Institute of Science, Isparta, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Gündoğdu, E.; Oğurlu, İ. The distribution of Wild Goat Capra aegagrusErxleben 1877 and population characteristics in Isparta, Türkiye. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2009, 8, 2318–2324. [Google Scholar]
- Gündoğdu, E. Population Size, Structure and Behaviours of Wild Goat in Cehennemdere Wildlife Improvement Area. Asian J Anim Vet Adv. 2011, 6, 555–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keskin, F. Observations on wild goat Capra aegagrusErxl. populations in Adıyaman region. M.Sc. Thesis, Istanbul University, Cerrahpaşa Institute of Graduate Studies, İstanbul, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Ünal, Y.; Oğurlu, İ. Population status of wild goat (Capra aegagrusErxl. 1777) in the Yazılıkaya State Reserve in Isparta. JoPAR 2022, 1, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yıldırım, E. Determination of the natural distribution areas and population densities of wild goat Capra aegagrusErxleben, 1777 (Mammalia: Artiodactyla) in Batman Province. M.Sc. Thesis, Batman University Graduate Education Institute, Batman, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Ullah, N.; Basheer, I.; Minghai, Z.; Rajpar, M.N.; Rehan, M.; Khan, M.T. Spatiotemporal distribution and population trends of Sindh ibex (Capra aegagrusblythii) in Balochistan during 2019–2022. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2024, 70, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yiğen, S.M.; Gündoğdu, E. Population size of the Wild Goat (Capra aegagrus) in the Demirkazık Wildlife Development Area. Turkish Journal of Forestry 2025, 26, 374–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bulut, G.; Doğan, A.; Şenkardeş, İ.; Avcı, R.; Tuzlacı, E. The Medicinal and Wild Food Plants of Batman City and Kozluk District (Batman-Turkey). Agric. Conspec. Sci. 2019, 84, 29–36. [Google Scholar]
- Buckland, S.T.; Anderson, D.R.; Burnham, K.P.; Laake, J.L. Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations, 1st ed.; Chapman & Hall: London; New York, 1993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fewster et al., 2009.
- Buckland, S.T.; Anderson, D.R.; Burnham, K.P.; Laake, J.L.; Borchers, D.L.; Thomas, L. Introduction to distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations; Oxford University Press: London, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, L.; Buckland, S.T.; Bumham, K.P.; Anderson, D.R.; Laake, J.L.; Borchers, D.L.; Strindberg, S. Distance Sampling. In Encyclopedia of Environmetrics; El-Shaarawi, A.H., Piegorsch, W.W., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, 2002; Volume 1, pp. 544–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kühl, H.; Maisels, F.; Ancrenaz, M.; Williamson, E.A. Best Practice Guidelines for Surveys and Monitoring of Great Ape Populations; Williamson, E.A., Ed.; IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group (PSG): Gland, Switzerland, 2008; 32p, Available online: http://www.primate-sg-org/ISBN 978-2-8317-1062-4.
- Burnham, K.P.; Anderson, D.R.; Laake, J.L. Estimation of density from line transect sampling of biological populations. Wildl. Monogr. 1980, 72, 1–202. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3830641.
- Buckland, S.T.; Plumptre, A.J.; Thomas, L.; Rexstad, E.A. Line transect sampling of primates: Can animal-to-observer distance methods work? Int. J. Primatol. 2010, 31, 485–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cassey, P.; McArdle, B.H. An assessment of distance sampling techniques for estimating animal abundance. Environmetrics 1999, 10, 261–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wearn, O.R.; Glover-Kapfer, P. Snap happy: camera traps are an effective sampling tool when compared with alternative methods. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2019, 6, 181748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Defler, T.R.; Pintor, D. Censusing primates by transect in a forest of known primate density. Int. J. Primatol. 1985, 6, 243–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chapman, C.; Fedigan, L.M.; Fedigan, L. A comparison of transect methods of estimating population densities of Costa Rican primates. Brenesia 1988, 30, 67–80. [Google Scholar]
- Garcia, J.E. Comparisons of estimated densities computed for Saguinusfuscicollis and Saguinuslabiatus using line transect sampling. Primates Report 1993, 37, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peres, C. General guidelines for standardizing line transect surveys of tropical forest primates. Neotrop. Primates 1999. 7, ll–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brugiere, D.; Fleury, M.C. Estimating primate densities using home range and line transect methods: a comparative test with the black colobus monkey Colobus satanus. Primates 2000, 41, 373–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plumptre, A.J. Monitoring mammal populations with line transect techniques in African forests. J. Appl. Ecol. 2000, 37, 356–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marshall, A.R.; Lovett, J.C.; White, P.C.L. Selection of line-transect methods for estimating the density of group-living animals: Lessons from the Primates. Am. J. Primatol. 2008, 70, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Corlatti, L.; Fattorini, L.; Nelli, L. The use of blockcounts, mark–resight and distance sampling to estimate populationsize of amountain-dwelling ungulate. Population Ecology 2015, 57, 409–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Neill, H. Designing robust ranger based monitoringstrategies for the saiga antelope Saiga tatarica tatarica. PhD thesis, Imperial College London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, N.J.; Milner-Gulland, E.J. Monitoring ungulatesin Central Asia: current constraints and future potential. Oryx 2011, 45, 38–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marques, T.A.; Thomas, L.; Martin, S.W.; Mellinger, D.K.; Ward, J.A.; Moretti, D.J.; Harris, D.; Tyack, P.L. Estimating animal population density using passive acoustics. Biol. Rev. 2012, 88, 287–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shackleton, D. M. Wild sheep and goats and their relatives: Status survey and conservation action plan for Caprinae. Intl. Uni. Conserv. Nat. Pak 1997, 1–390. [Google Scholar]
- Fischer, J.; Lindenmayer, D.B. Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Global Ecology and Biogeography 2007, 16, 265–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]



| North | South | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Study area (km2) | 190 | 241 | 431 |
| Covered area (km2) | 36.57 | 76.42 | 112.99 |
| Sampling effort (km) | 91.75 | 191.72 | 283.47 |
| n | 22 | 43 | 65 |
| k | 88 | 154 | 242 |
| Parameter | Estimate | SE | %CV | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| North | ER(S) | 0.23 | 0.046 | 19.24 | 0.14-0.32 |
| ER | 1.97 | 0.455 | 23.05 | 1.08-2.86 | |
| DS | 0.71 | 0.268 | 37.75 | 0.34-1.46 | |
| D | 5.85 | 2.329 | 39.82 | 2.74-12.50 | |
| E(S) | 8.22 | 1.104 | 13.42 | 6.06-10.38 | |
| M(S) | 8.23 | 1.124 | 13.65 | 6.03-10.43 | |
| N* | 1111 | 442.550 | 39.82 | 519-2375 | |
| South | ER(S) | 0.22 | 0.030 | 13.27 | 0.16-0.28 |
| ER | 2.08 | 0.368 | 17.74 | 1.36-2.80 | |
| DS | 0.75 | 0.191 | 25.47 | 0.45-1.23 | |
| D | 6.95 | 1.951 | 28.06 | 4.04-11.98 | |
| E(S) | 9.25 | 1.108 | 11.97 | 7.08-11.42 | |
| M(S) | 9.26 | 1.117 | 12.06 | 7.07-11.45 | |
| N | 1675 | 470.317 | 28.06 | 972-2887 | |
| Total | ER(S) | 0.23 | 0.026 | 11.37 | 0.18-0.28 |
| ER | 2.03 | 0.287 | 14.15 | 1.47-2.59 | |
| DS | 0.73 | 0.159 | 21.75 | 0.48-1.22 | |
| D | 6.47 | 1.498 | 23.17 | 4.11-10.16 | |
| E(S) | 8.81 | 0.780 | 9.07 | 7.28-10.34 | |
| M(S) | 8.91 | 0.828 | 9.29 | 7.29-10.53 | |
| N | 2787 | 645.793 | 23.17 | 1773-4379 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
