EDP Foz-Tua: Large Mammals: river crossings - reference situation/early exploration phase. Compensatory Measures Monitoring Program (MC40B.1 and MC40B.2) [2017-2020]

Enregistrements de données

Les données de cette ressource données d'échantillonnage ont été publiées sous forme d'une Archive Darwin Core (Darwin Core Archive ou DwC-A), le format standard pour partager des données de biodiversité en tant qu'ensemble d'un ou plusieurs tableurs de données. Le tableur de données du cœur de standard (core) contient 167 enregistrements.

1 tableurs de données d'extension existent également. Un enregistrement d'extension fournit des informations supplémentaires sur un enregistrement du cœur de standard (core). Le nombre d'enregistrements dans chaque tableur de données d'extension est illustré ci-dessous.

Cet IPT archive les données et sert donc de dépôt de données. Les données et métadonnées de la ressource sont disponibles pour téléchargement dans la section téléchargements. Le tableau des versions liste les autres versions de chaque ressource rendues disponibles de façon publique et permet de tracer les modifications apportées à la ressource au fil du temps.

Versions

Le tableau ci-dessous n'affiche que les versions publiées de la ressource accessibles publiquement.

Comment citer

Les chercheurs doivent citer cette ressource comme suit:

Cabral J A, Travassos P, Barros P, Braz L, Carvalho D, Vale-Gonçalves H, Gomes C, Faria S, Múrias T (2023). EDP Foz-Tua: Large Mammals: river crossings - reference situation/early exploration phase. Compensatory Measures Monitoring Program (MC40B.1 and MC40B.2) [2017-2020]. Version 1.0. EDP - Energias de Portugal. Samplingevent dataset. http://ipt.gbif.pt/ipt/resource?r=edp_tua_mc40b_2017-20&v=1.0

Droits

Les chercheurs doivent respecter la déclaration de droits suivante:

L’éditeur et détenteur des droits de cette ressource est EDP. Ce travail est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0.

Enregistrement GBIF

Cette ressource a été enregistrée sur le portail GBIF, et possède l'UUID GBIF suivante : 5eef8cf4-4371-4b11-84b9-92a46d968ad6.  EDP publie cette ressource, et est enregistré dans le GBIF comme éditeur de données avec l'approbation du GBIF Portugal.

Mots-clé

Large mammals; river crossings; Compensatory Measures Program; Measures MC40B.1; MC40B.2; occurrence; observations; camera-trapping; Foz-tua dam; exploration phase

Contacts

Couverture géographique

The data were collected in three bridges over the Tua river, Abreiro (MC40B.1) and Brunheda (MC40B.1 and MC40B.2) up to 25 km from the mouth, in the municipalities of Alijó, Carrazeda de Ansiães, Murça, Vila Flor and Mirandela.

Couverture taxonomique

The taxonomic coverage of this dataset spans 1 phylum, 2 classes, 4 orders, 5 families, 11 genera (8 of mammals) and 9 species (6 of mammals).

Couverture temporelle

Données sur le projet

The dataset contains records of large mammals (Mammalia) and other fauna (Herpetofauna) collected in the lower valley of the River Tua to assess the river crossing potential after the implementation of the Compensatory Measure MC40B.1 (implemented in in spring 2016) and MC40B.2 (implemented in winter 2017), included in the Compensatory Measures Program (PMC) of the Foz Tua Hydroelectric Dam, promoted by EDP – Energias de Portugal, S.A. Data were collected between November 2017 and December 2020 in two bridges, using visual prospection (points and/or transects), stone powder and camera trapping (2 cameras per site). The occurrence of the target taxa was documented through 472 positive records of individuals (visual observations, photos, indirect signs) were recorded, of which 400 were identified to the species, 43 to the genus and 29 to supra generic status. The most abundant species (> 20 records) were Martes foina (326 records), Vulpes vulpes (36) and Genetta genetta (23).

Les personnes impliquées dans le projet:

Méthodes d'échantillonnage

The survey covered two of the three bridges in the river Tua lower valley: Abreiro (MC40B.1) and Brunheda (MC40B.1 and MC40B.2), using the same methodology for both sub-measures. Sampling was carried out using a combination of (a) daytime pedestrian transects along the bridge deck to look for evidences of presence (faeces and footprints) and/or the presence of animals (dead or alive), and (b) the use of stone powder on the side of the road, provided the ideal conditions (i.e., absence of rain or wind strong) were met, in order to detect the presence of footprints and tracks/trails at night. Stone dust was placed at both ends of the bridges (but inside the deck) and at both ends of the adapted passage, only on the sidewalk, on each side of the road. These methodologies could be complemented with camera-trapping, if the safety conditions for the use of these devices were met. Each bridge was visited once a day, preferably in the early morning, for five consecutive days. Whenever possible, all evidences were identified “in situ” to the species level or, when this was not possible (e.g. deformed/incomplete footprints or broken/incomplete fecal samples), up to top-most hierarchical taxonomic group. The cases where no positive identification was possible where also accounted for, being recorded as “undetermined species”. Additionally, all probable signs of actual crossing through the bridges and/or in the adapted passage were recorded. A probable crossing of an individual of a species was considered when the footprints or trails were found in at least two places where the stone dust was placed, one at each end of the bridge, with the same direction of travel on the same sampling day. In same cases, the quality of the evidences (e.g., very old, broken or incomplete faeces, or unclear footprints), or the similarity between the species remains, prevented a species-specific identification, but could be attributable to several competing species. Accordingly, the following “species complexes” were used: “wild cat/domestic cat/genet (Felis silvestris/F. catus/Genetta genetta)”, “wild cat/domestic cat (Felis silvestris/F. catus)” and “beach marten/European pine marten (Martes foina/M. Martes)”. In this context, it is important to mention that some canid footprints attributed to the domestic (or feral) dog, were large enough to be compatible with those of Iberian wolf (Canis lupus signatus), a species that could potentially occur in the area, since there were three confirmed packs in the region in the last Wolf National Census (Pimenta et al., 2005). However, as all canids directly observed included large dogs, in the absence of photographic records and/or other unequivocal evidence (e.g., faeces) of the presence of wolf, all Canid footprints not clearly identified as dogs, were attributed to the species complex “domestic/feral dog/Iberian wolf (Canis spp.)”

Description des étapes de la méthode:

1. To be completed

Citations bibliographiques

1. Pimenta V., Barroso I., Álvares F., Correia J., Ferrão da Costa G., Moreira L., Nascimento J., Petrucci-Fonseca F., Roque S. & Santos E. 2005. Situação populacional do Lobo em Portugal: resultados do Censo Nacional 2002/2003. Relatório Técnico. Instituto de Conservação da Natureza/Grupo Lobo. Lisboa, 158pp+Anexos.

Métadonnées additionnelles