Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

BEHAVIORAL SAMPLING IN THE FIELD: CONTINUOUS FOCAL VERSUS FOCAL INTERVAL SAMPLING

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Behaviour

I compared data collection rates for continuous and interval focal samples during a two-year, single-observer field study of white-faced capuchins (Cebus capucinus) in Costa Rica. I also compared the basic activity budgets generated by the two sampling methods, estimates of numbers in proximity, and rates at which additional ad libitum observations could be recorded. I collected 1238 hours of focal data (620 hr continuous, 618 hr interval). I found focal interval sampling to be 25% more time efficient, despite higher rate of sample loss, partly because interval samples are easier to obtain in difficult conditions. I found no evidence that interval sampling provided better opportunities for ad libitum observation than continuous sampling. Overall, the two methods yielded similar estimates of activity budgets. However, continuous sampling resulted in somewhat higher estimates of time spent eating, while interval data gave somewhat lower estimates of time spent foraging (looking for or handling food items) and moving, resulting in lower estimates of foraging success. Interval sampling also yielded slightly lower estimates of time spent vigilant. I attribute these patterns to two major effects: (1) errors of omission (missing rare behaviors of short duration) during interval samples and (2) a greater tendency toward conditional sampling bias (under-representing behaviors due to difficult sampling conditions such as rapid travel) under a continuous sampling regime.

10.1163/156853900502006
/content/journals/10.1163/156853900502006
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/156853900502006
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/156853900502006
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/156853900502006
2000-02-01
2016-12-07

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Behaviour — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation