Field evaluation of distance-estimation error during wetland-dependent bird surveys

Article

<< Previous

Next >>

Contents Vol 39(4)

doi:10.1071/WR11161

Ecology, Management and Conservation in Natural and Modified Habitats

	Search




	Advanced Search



	Journal Home

	About the Journal

	Editorial Board

	Contacts



	Content

	Online Early

	Current Issue

	Just Accepted

	All Issues

	Special Issues

	Sample Issue



	For Authors

	General Information

	Notice to Authors

	Submit Article

	Open Access



	For Referees

	General Information

	Review Article

	Referee Guidelines

	Annual Referee Index



	For Subscribers

	Subscription Prices

	Customer Service

	Print Publication Dates

e-Alerts

Subscribe to our Email Alert or

feeds for the latest journal papers.

Connect with us

Field evaluation of distance-estimation error during wetland-dependent bird surveys

Christopher P. Nadeau ^A ^C ^D and Courtney J. Conway ^B

^A Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, 325 Biological Sciences East, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
^B US Geological Survey, Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA.
^C Present address: New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
^D Corresponding author. Email: cpn28@cornell.edu

Wildlife Research 39(4) 311-320 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WR11161
Submitted: 11 September 2011 Accepted: 26 February 2012 Published: 11 May 2012





	PDF (339 KB) $25



	Export Citation

Print

Abstract

Context: The most common methods to estimate detection probability during avian point-count surveys involve recording a distance between the survey point and individual birds detected during the survey period. Accurately measuring or estimating distance is an important assumption of these methods; however, this assumption is rarely tested in the context of aural avian point-count surveys.

Aims: We expand on recent bird-simulation studies to document the error associated with estimating distance to calling birds in a wetland ecosystem.

Methods: We used two approaches to estimate the error associated with five surveyor’s distance estimates between the survey point and calling birds, and to determine the factors that affect a surveyor’s ability to estimate distance.

Key results: We observed biased and imprecise distance estimates when estimating distance to simulated birds in a point-count scenario (_error = –9 m, s.d._error = 47 m) and when estimating distances to real birds during field trials (_error = 39 m, s.d._error = 79 m). The amount of bias and precision in distance estimates differed among surveyors; surveyors with more training and experience were less biased and more precise when estimating distance to both real and simulated birds. Three environmental factors were important in explaining the error associated with distance estimates, including the measured distance from the bird to the surveyor, the volume of the call and the species of bird. Surveyors tended to make large overestimations to birds close to the survey point, which is an especially serious error in distance sampling.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that distance-estimation error is prevalent, but surveyor training may be the easiest way to reduce distance-estimation error.

Implications: The present study has demonstrated how relatively simple field trials can be used to estimate the error associated with distance estimates used to estimate detection probability during avian point-count surveys. Evaluating distance-estimation errors will allow investigators to better evaluate the accuracy of avian density and trend estimates. Moreover, investigators who evaluate distance-estimation errors could employ recently developed models to incorporate distance-estimation error into analyses. We encourage further development of such models, including the inclusion of such models into distance-analysis software.

Additional keywords: detection probability, distance error, distance sampling, marsh birds.

References

Alldredge, M. W., Pollock, K. H., Simons, T. R., Collazo, J. A., and Shriner, S. A. (2007a). Time-of-detection method for estimating abundance during point-count surveys. The Auk 124, 653–664.
| CrossRef |

Alldredge, M. W., Simons, T. R., and Pollock, K. H. (2007b). A field evaluation of distance measurement error in auditory avian point-count surveys. The Journal of Wildlife Management 71, 2759–2766.
| CrossRef |

Alldredge, M. W., Pacifici, K., Simons, T. R., and Pollock, K. H. (2008). A novel field evaluation of the effectiveness of distance and independent observer sampling to estimate aural avian detection probabilities. Journal of Applied Ecology 45, 1349–1356.
| CrossRef |

Anderson, D. R. (2001). The need to get the basics right in wildlife field studies. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29, 1294–1297.

Anderson, D. R. (2003). Response to Engeman: index values rarely constitute reliable information. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31, 288–291.

Anderson, D. R. (2008). ‘Model based inference in the life sciences: a primer on evidence.’ (Springer: New York.)

Aylor, D. E. (1972a). Sound transmission through vegetation in relation to leaf area density, leaf width, and breadth of canopy. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 51, 411–414.
| CrossRef |

Aylor, D. E. (1972b). Noise reduction by vegetation and ground. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 51, 197–205.
| CrossRef |

Barton, K. (2010). ‘MuMIn: Multi-model Inference. R Package Version 0.13.17.’ Available at http://cran.r-project.org/package=MuMIn [Verified 15 March 2011.]

Borchers, D. L., Marques, T. A., Gunnlaugsson, T., and Jupp, P. E. (2010). Estimating distance sampling detection functions when distances are measured with errors. Journal of Agricultural Biological & Environmental Statistics 15, 346–361.
| CrossRef |

Buckland, S. T., Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P., Laake, J. L., Borchers, D. L., and Thomas, L. (2001). ‘Introduction to Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations.’ (Oxford Press: New York.)

Buckland, S. T., Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P., Laake, J. L., Borchers, D. L., and Thomas, L. (Eds) (2004). ‘Advanced Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations.’ (Oxford Press: New York.)

Burnham, K. P., and Anderson, D. R. (2001). ‘Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Iinformation-theoretic Approach.’ (Springer: New York.)

Camp, R. J. (2007). Measurement error in Hawaiian forest bird surveys and their effect on density estimation. Hawai’i Cooperative Studies Unit Technical Report HCSU-005. University of Hawai’i at Hilo, Kīlauea Field Station, HI.

Conway, C. J. (2009). Standardized North American Marsh Bird Monitoring Protocols, US Geological Survey, Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Wildlife Research Report #2009–01. US Geological Survey, Tucson, AZ.

Conway, C. J. (2011). Standardized North American marsh bird monitoring protocols. Waterbirds 34, 319–346.
| CrossRef |

Conway, C. J., and Droege, S. (2006). A unified strategy for monitoring changes in abundance of birds associated with North American tidal marshes. Studies in Avian Biology 32, 382–397.

Conway, C. J., and Timmermans, S. T. A. (2005). Progress toward developing field protocols for a North American marsh bird monitoring program. Bird Conservation Implementation and Integration in the Americas. In ‘Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference’. pp. 997–1005. US Department of Agriculture General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191. (US Department of Agriculture: Albany, NY.)

Conway, C. J., Sulzman, C., and Raulston, B. A. (2004). Factors affecting detection probability of California black rails. The Journal of Wildlife Management 68, 360–370.
| CrossRef |

DeSante, D. F. (1981). A field test of the variable circular-plot censusing technique in a California coastal scrub breeding bird community. Studies in Avian Biology 6, 177–185.

DeSante, D. F. (1986). A field test of the variable circular-plot censusing method in a Sierran subalpine forest habitat. The Condor 88, 129–142.
| CrossRef |

Diefenbach, D. R., Brauning, D. W., and Mattice, J. A. (2003). Variability in grassland bird counts related to observer differences and species detection rates. The Auk 120, 1168–1179.
| CrossRef |

Ellingson, A. R., and Lukacs, P. M. (2003). Improving methods for regional landbird monitoring: a reply to Hutto and Young. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31, 896–902.

Engeman, R. M. (2002). More on the need to get the basics right: population indices. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31, 286–287.

Farnsworth, G. L., Pollock, K. H., Nichols, J. D., Simons, T. R., Hines, J. E., and Sauer, J. R. (2002). A removal model for estimating detection probabilities from point-count surveys. The Auk 119, 414–425.
| CrossRef |

Hutto, R. L., and Young, J. S. (2002). Regional landbird monitoring: perspectives from the northern Rocky Mountains. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30, 738–750.

Hutto, R. L., and Young, J. S. (2003). On the design of monitoring programs and the use of indices: a reply to Ellingson and Lukacs. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31, 903–910.

Jobin, B., Bazin, R., Maynard, L., McConnell, A., and Stewart, J. (2011). Least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) survey protocol. Waterbirds 34, 225–233.

Johnson, D. H. (2008). In defense of indices: the case of bird surveys. The Journal of Wildlife Management 72, 857–868.

Kissling, M. L., and Garton, E. O. (2006). Estimating detection probability and density from point-count surveys: a combination of distance and double observer sampling. The Auk 123, 735–752.
| CrossRef |

Marques, T. A. (2004). Predicting and correcting bias caused by measurement error in line transect sampling using multiplicative error models. Biometrics 60, 757–763.
| CrossRef |

Marten, K., and Marler, P. (1977). Sound transmission and its significance for animal vocalization. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2, 271–290.
| CrossRef |

Nadeau, C. P., Conway, C. J., Smith, B. S., and Lewis, T. E. (2008). Maximizing detection probability of wetland-dependent birds during point-count surveys in northwestern Florida. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120, 513–518.
| CrossRef |

Nichols, J. D., Hines, J. E., Sauer, J. R., Fallon, F. W., Fallon, J. E., and Heglund, P. J. (2000). A double-surveyor approach for estimating detection probability and abundance from point-counts. The Auk 117, 393–408.
| CrossRef |

Nichols, J. D., Thomas, L., and Conn, P. B. (2008). Inferences about landbird abundance from count data: recent advances and future directions. In ‘Modeling demographic processes in marked populations’. (Eds D. L. Thomson, E. G. Cooch and M. J. Conroy.) pp. 201–235. (Springer: New York.)

Norvell, R. E., Howe, F. P., and Parrish, J. R. (2003). A seven-year comparison of relative-abundance and distance-sampling methods. The Auk 120, 1013–1028.
| CrossRef |

R Development Core Team (2010). ‘R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.’ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna.)

Ransom, D., and Pinchak, W. E. (2003). Assessing accuracy of a laser rangefinder in estimating grassland bird density. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31, 460–463.

Reynolds, R. T., Scott, J. M., and Nussbaum, R. A. (1980). A variable circular-plot method for estimating bird numbers. The Condor 82, 309–313.
| CrossRef |

Rosenstock, S. S., Anderson, D. R., Giesen, K. M., Leukering, T., and Carter, M. F. (2002). Landbird counting techniques: current practices and an alternative. The Auk 119, 46–53.
| CrossRef |

Scott, J. M., Ramsey, F. L., and Kepler, C. B. (1981). Distance estimation as a variable in estimating bird numbers from vocalizations. Studies in Avian Biology 6, 334–340.

Simons, T. D., Alldredge, M. W., Pollock, K. H., and Wettroth, J. M. (2007). Experimental analysis of the auditory detection process of avian point-counts. The Auk 124, 986–999.
| CrossRef |

Tacha, T. C., and Braun, C. E. (Eds.) (1994). ‘Management of Migratory Shore and Upland Game Birds in North America.’ (International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies: Washington, DC.)

Tarvin, K. A., Garvin, M. C., Jawor, J. M., and Dayer, K. A. (1998). A field evaluation of techniques used to estimate density of blue jays. Journal of Field Ornithology 69, 209–222.

Thompson, W. L. (2002). Towards reliable bird surveys: accounting for individuals present but not detected. The Auk 119, 18–25.
| CrossRef |

Subscriber Login

	Username: Password:

Legal & Privacy | Contact Us | Help