Correcting wildlife counts using detection probabilities
Gary C. White
Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA. Email: email@example.com
Wildlife Research 32(3) 211-216 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WR03123
Submitted: 22 December 2003 Accepted: 3 March 2005 Published: 22 June 2005
One of the most pervasive uses of indices of wildlife populations is uncorrected counts of animals. Two examples are the minimum number known alive from capture and release studies, and aerial surveys where the detection probability is not estimated from a sightability model, marked animals, or distance sampling. Both the mark–recapture and distance-sampling estimators are techniques to estimate the probability of detection of an individual animal (or cluster of animals), which is then used to correct a count of animals. However, often the number of animals in a survey is inadequate to compute an estimate of the detection probability and hence correct the count. Modern methods allow sophisticated modelling to estimate the detection probability, including incorporating covariates to provide additional information about the detection probability. Examples from both distance and mark–recapture sampling are presented to demonstrate the approach.
Logistic regression in capture–recapture models.
Buckland S. T., Anderson D. R., Burnham K. P., and Laake J. L. (1993). ‘Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations.’ (Chapman and Hall: New York.)
Model selection: an integral part of inference.
Buckland S. T., Anderson D. R., Burnham K. P., Laake J. L., Borchers D. L., and Thomas L. (2001). Introduction to Distance Sampling.’ (Oxford University Press: London.)
Kullback–Leibler information theory as a basis for strong inference in ecological studies.
Burnham K. P., and Anderson D. R. (2002). ‘Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: a Practical Information-Theoretic Approach.’ 2nd edn. (Springer-Verlag: New York.)
Model selection strategy in the analysis of capture–recapture data.
Quantifying unequal catchability and its effect on survival estimates in an actual population.
Journal of Animal Ecology
Experiments in aerial survey.
Journal of Wildlife Management
Using trend indices for endangered species.
Marine Mammal Science
Ganey J. L., Ackers S., Fonken P., Jenness J. S., Kessler C., Nodal K., Shaklee P., and Swarthout E. (1999). Monitoring populations of Mexican spotted owls in Arizona and New Mexico: 1999 Progress report. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA.
Ganey J. L., White G. C., Bowden D. C., and Franklin A. B. (2004). Evaluating methods for monitoring populations of Mexican spotted owls: a case study. In ‘Sampling Rare or Elusive Species: Concepts, Designs and Techniques for Estimating Population Parameters’. (Ed. W. L. Thompson.) pp. 337–385. (Island Press: Washington, DC.)
On the statistical analysis of capture–recapture experiments.
Some practical aspects of a conditional likelihood approach to capture experiments.
Population estimation with sparse data: the role of estimators versus indices revisited.
Canadian Journal of Zoology
The application of capture–mark–recapture methods to the enumeration of small mammal populations.
Symposia of the Zoological Society of London
Capture–recapture models: using marked animals to study population dynamics.
Estimation methodology in contemporary small mammal capture–recapture studies.
Journal of Mammalogy
Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations.
Unified maximum likelihood estimates for closed capture–recapture models using mixtures.
Visibility bias during aerial surveys of elk in north central Idaho.
Journal of Wildlife Management
An empirical test of using counts of individuals captured as indices of population size.
Journal of Mammalogy
Estimator selection for closed-population capture–recapture.
Journal of Agricultural Biological & Environmental Statistics
Information-theoretic model selection and model averaging for closed-population capture–recapture studies.
Thomas L., Laake J. L., Derry J. F., Buckland S. T., Borchers D. L., et al.(1998). Distance 3.5. Research Unit for Wildlife Population Assessment, University of St Andrews, UK. Available at http://www.ruwpa.st-and.ac.uk/distance/ [Verified 8 May 2005.]
White G. C. (2001). Statistical models: keys to understanding the natural world. In ’Modeling in Natural Resource Management’. (Eds T. M. Shenk and A. B. Franklin). pp. 35–56. (Island Press: Washington, DC.)
Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals.
White G. C., Anderson D. R., Burnham K. P., and Otis D. L. (1982). Capture–recapture and removal methods for sampling closed populations. LA-8787-NERP, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA. 235 pp.
White G. C., Burnham K. P., and Anderson D. R. (2001). Advanced features of Program MARK. In ‘Wildlife, Land, and People: Priorities for the 21st Century. Proceedings of the Second International Wildlife Management Congress’. (Eds R. Field, R. J. Warren, H. Okarma, and P. R. Sievert.) pp. 368–377. (The Wildlife Society: Bethesda, MD.)