Dataset Information

A comparison of abundance estimates from extended batch-marking and Jolly-Seber-type experiments.

ABSTRACT: Little attention has been paid to the use of multi-sample batch-marking studies, as it is generally assumed that an individual's capture history is necessary for fully efficient estimates. However, recently, Huggins et al. (2010) present a pseudo-likelihood for a multi-sample batch-marking study where they used estimating equations to solve for survival and capture probabilities and then derived abundance estimates using a Horvitz-Thompson-type estimator. We have developed and maximized the likelihood for batch-marking studies. We use data simulated from a Jolly-Seber-type study and convert this to what would have been obtained from an extended batch-marking study. We compare our abundance estimates obtained from the Crosbie-Manly-Arnason-Schwarz (CMAS) model with those of the extended batch-marking model to determine the efficiency of collecting and analyzing batch-marking data. We found that estimates of abundance were similar for all three estimators: CMAS, Huggins, and our likelihood. Gains are made when using unique identifiers and employing the CMAS model in terms of precision; however, the likelihood typically had lower mean square error than the pseudo-likelihood method of Huggins et al. (2010). When faced with designing a batch-marking study, researchers can be confident in obtaining unbiased abundance estimators. Furthermore, they can design studies in order to reduce mean square error by manipulating capture probabilities and sample size.

SUBMITTER: Cowen LL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3925384 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparison of abundance estimates from extended batch-marking and Jolly-Seber-type experiments.

Cowen Laura L E LL Besbeas Panagiotis P Morgan Byron J T BJ Schwarz Carl J CJ

Ecology and evolution 20131223 2

Little attention has been paid to the use of multi-sample batch-marking studies, as it is generally assumed that an individual's capture history is necessary for fully efficient estimates. However, recently, Huggins et al. (2010) present a pseudo-likelihood for a multi-sample batch-marking study where they used estimating equations to solve for survival and capture probabilities and then derived abundance estimates using a Horvitz-Thompson-type estimator. We have developed and maximized the like ...[more]

PMID: 24558576

Similar Datasets

Project description:Wildlife managers often rely on population estimates, but estimates can be challenging to obtain for geographically widespread species. Spotlight surveys provide abundance data for many species and, when conducted over wide spatial scales, have potential to provide population estimates of geographically widespread species. The bare-nosed wombat (Vombatus ursinus) has a broad geographical range and is subject to spotlight surveys. We used 19 years (2002-2020) of annual spotlight surveys to provide the first estimates of population abundance for two of the three extant bare-nosed wombat subspecies: V. u. ursinus on Flinders Island; and V. u. tasmaniensis on the Tasmanian mainland. Using distance sampling methods, we estimated annual rates of change and 2020 population sizes for both subspecies. Tasmanian mainland surveys included habitat data, which allowed us to also look for evidence of habitat associations for V. u. tasmaniensis. The average wombat density estimate was higher on Flinders Island (0.42 ha-1, 95% CI = 0.25-0.79) than on the Tasmanian mainland (0.11 ha-1, CI = 0.07-0.19) and both wombat subspecies increased over the 19-year survey period with an estimated annual growth rate of 2.90% (CI = -1.7 to 7.3) on Flinders Island and 1.20% (CI = -1.1 to 2.9) on mainland Tasmania. Habitat associations for V. u. tasmaniensis were weak, possibly owing to survey design; however, we detected regional variation in density for this subspecies. We estimated the population size of V. u. ursinus to be 71,826 (CI = 43,913-136,761) on Flinders Island, which when combined with a previously published estimate of 2599 (CI = 2254-2858) from Maria Island, where the subspecies was introduced, provides a total population estimate. We also estimated 840,665 (CI = 531,104-1,201,547) V. u. tasmaniensis on mainland Tasmania. These estimates may be conservative, owing to individual heterogeneity in when wombats emerge from burrows. Although these two subspecies are not currently threatened, our population estimates provide an important reference when assessing their population status in the future, and demonstrate how spotlight surveys can be valuable to inform management of geographically widespread species.

Dataset Information

A comparison of abundance estimates from extended batch-marking and Jolly-Seber-type experiments.

Publications

A comparison of abundance estimates from extended batch-marking and Jolly-Seber-type experiments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets