Dataset Information

Effects of social organization, trap arrangement and density, sampling scale, and population density on bias in population size estimation using some common mark-recapture estimators.

ABSTRACT: Mark-recapture estimators are commonly used for population size estimation, and typically yield unbiased estimates for most solitary species with low to moderate home range sizes. However, these methods assume independence of captures among individuals, an assumption that is clearly violated in social species that show fission-fusion dynamics, such as the Asian elephant. In the specific case of Asian elephants, doubts have been raised about the accuracy of population size estimates. More importantly, the potential problem for the use of mark-recapture methods posed by social organization in general has not been systematically addressed. We developed an individual-based simulation framework to systematically examine the potential effects of type of social organization, as well as other factors such as trap density and arrangement, spatial scale of sampling, and population density, on bias in population sizes estimated by POPAN, Robust Design, and Robust Design with detection heterogeneity. In the present study, we ran simulations with biological, demographic and ecological parameters relevant to Asian elephant populations, but the simulation framework is easily extended to address questions relevant to other social species. We collected capture history data from the simulations, and used those data to test for bias in population size estimation. Social organization significantly affected bias in most analyses, but the effect sizes were variable, depending on other factors. Social organization tended to introduce large bias when trap arrangement was uniform and sampling effort was low. POPAN clearly outperformed the two Robust Design models we tested, yielding close to zero bias if traps were arranged at random in the study area, and when population density and trap density were not too low. Social organization did not have a major effect on bias for these parameter combinations at which POPAN gave more or less unbiased population size estimates. Therefore, the effect of social organization on bias in population estimation could be removed by using POPAN with specific parameter combinations, to obtain population size estimates in a social species.

SUBMITTER: Gupta M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5357017 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effects of social organization, trap arrangement and density, sampling scale, and population density on bias in population size estimation using some common mark-recapture estimators.

Gupta Manan M Joshi Amitabh A Vidya T N C TN

PloS one 20170317 3

Mark-recapture estimators are commonly used for population size estimation, and typically yield unbiased estimates for most solitary species with low to moderate home range sizes. However, these methods assume independence of captures among individuals, an assumption that is clearly violated in social species that show fission-fusion dynamics, such as the Asian elephant. In the specific case of Asian elephants, doubts have been raised about the accuracy of population size estimates. More importa ...[more]

PMID: 28306735

Similar Datasets

Project description:Close-kin mark-recapture (CKMR) is a method for estimating abundance and vital rates from kinship relationships observed in genetic samples. CKMR inference only requires animals to be sampled once (e.g., lethally), potentially widening the scope of population-level inference relative to traditional monitoring programs.One assumption of CKMR is that, conditional on individual covariates like age, all animals have an equal probability of being sampled. However, if genetic data are collected opportunistically (e.g., via hunters or fishers), there is potential for spatial variation in sampling probability that can bias CKMR estimators, particularly when genetically related individuals stay in close proximity.We used individual-based simulation to investigate consequences of dispersal limitation and spatially biased sampling on performance of naive (nonspatial) CKMR estimators of abundance, fecundity, and adult survival. Population dynamics approximated that of a long-lived mammal species subject to lethal sampling.Naive CKMR abundance estimators were relatively unbiased when dispersal was unconstrained (i.e., complete mixing) or when sampling was random or subject to moderate levels of spatial variation. When dispersal was limited, extreme variation in spatial sampling probabilities negatively biased abundance estimates. Reproductive schedules and survival were well estimated, except for survival when adults could emigrate out of the sampled area. Incomplete mixing was readily detected using Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests.Although CKMR appears promising for estimating abundance and vital rates with opportunistically collected genetic data, care is needed when dispersal limitation is coupled with spatially biased sampling. Fortunately, incomplete mixing is easily detected with adequate sample sizes. In principle, it is possible to devise and fit spatially explicit CKMR models to avoid bias under dispersal limitation, but development of such models necessitates additional complexity (and possibly additional data). We suggest using simulation studies to examine potential bias and precision of proposed modeling approaches prior to implementing a CKMR program.

Project description:Reliable estimates of population size are fundamental in many ecological studies and biodiversity conservation. Selecting appropriate methods to estimate abundance is often very difficult, especially if data are scarce. Most studies concerning the reliability of different estimators used simulation data based on assumptions about capture variability that do not necessarily reflect conditions in natural populations. Here, we used data from an intensively studied closed population of the arboreal gecko Gehyra variegata to construct reference population sizes for assessing twelve different population size estimators in terms of bias, precision, accuracy, and their 95%-confidence intervals. Two of the reference populations reflect natural biological entities, whereas the other reference populations reflect artificial subsets of the population. Since individual heterogeneity was assumed, we tested modifications of the Lincoln-Petersen estimator, a set of models in programs MARK and CARE-2, and a truncated geometric distribution. Ranking of methods was similar across criteria. Models accounting for individual heterogeneity performed best in all assessment criteria. For populations from heterogeneous habitats without obvious covariates explaining individual heterogeneity, we recommend using the moment estimator or the interpolated jackknife estimator (both implemented in CAPTURE/MARK). If data for capture frequencies are substantial, we recommend the sample coverage or the estimating equation (both models implemented in CARE-2). Depending on the distribution of catchabilities, our proposed multiple Lincoln-Petersen and a truncated geometric distribution obtained comparably good results. The former usually resulted in a minimum population size and the latter can be recommended when there is a long tail of low capture probabilities. Models with covariates and mixture models performed poorly. Our approach identified suitable methods and extended options to evaluate the performance of mark-recapture population size estimators under field conditions, which is essential for selecting an appropriate method and obtaining reliable results in ecology and conservation biology, and thus for sound management.

Project description:Accurate estimates of population abundance are a critical component of species conservation efforts in order to monitor the potential recovery of populations. Capture-mark-recapture (CMR) is a widely used approach to estimate population abundance, yet social species moving in groups violate the assumption of CMR approaches that all individuals in the population are detected independently. We developed a closed CMR model that addresses an important characteristic of group-living species-that individual-detection probability typically is conditional on group detection. Henceforth termed the Two-Step model, this approach first estimates group-detection probability and then-conditional on group detection-estimates individual-detection probability for individuals within detected groups. Overall abundance is estimated assuming that undetected groups have the same average group size as detected groups. We compared the performance of this Two-Step CMR model to a conventional (One-Step) closed CMR model that ignored group structure. We assessed model sensitivity to variation in both group- and individual-detection probability. Both models returned overall unbiased estimates of abundance, but the One-Step model returned deceptively narrow Bayesian confidence intervals (BCI) that failed to encompass the correct population abundance an average 52% of the time. Contrary, under the Two-Step model, CI coverage was on average 96%. Both models had similar root mean squared errors (RMSE), except for scenarios with low group detection probability, where the Two-Step model had much lower RMSE. For illustration with a real data set, we applied the Two-Step and regular model to non-invasive genetic capture-recapture data of mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei). As with simulations, abundance estimates under both models were similar, but the Two-Step model estimate had a wider confidence interval. Results support using the Two-Step model for species living in constant groups, particularly when group detection probability is low, to reduce risk of bias and adequately portray uncertainty in abundance estimates. Important sources of variation in detection need to be incorporated into the Two-Step model when applying it to field data.

Project description:Accurate and precise abundance estimation is vital for informed wildlife conservation and management decision-making. Line transect surveys are a common sampling approach for abundance estimation. Distance sampling is often used to estimate abundance from line transect survey data; however, search encounter spatial capture-recapture can also be used when individuals in the population of interest are identifiable. The search encounter spatial capture-recapture model has rarely been applied, and its performance has not been compared to that of distance sampling. We analyzed simulated datasets to compare the performance of distance sampling and spatial capture-recapture abundance estimators. Additionally, we estimated the abundance of North Atlantic right whales in the southeastern United States with two formulations of each model and compared the estimates. Spatial capture-recapture abundance estimates had lower root mean squared error than distance sampling estimates. Spatial capture-recapture 95% credible intervals for abundance had nominal coverage, i.e., contained the simulating value for abundance in 95% of simulations, whereas distance sampling credible intervals had below nominal coverage. Moreover, North Atlantic right whale abundance estimates from distance sampling models were more sensitive to model specification compared to spatial capture-recapture estimates. When estimating abundance from line transect data, researchers should consider using search encounter spatial capture-recapture when individuals in the population of interest are identifiable, when line transects are surveyed over multiple occasions, when there is imperfect detection of individuals located on the line transect, and when it is safe to assume the population of interest is closed demographically. When line transects are surveyed over multiple occasions, researchers should be aware that individual space use may induce spatial autocorrelation in counts across transects. This is not accounted for in common distance sampling estimators and leads to overly precise abundance estimates.

Dataset Information

Effects of social organization, trap arrangement and density, sampling scale, and population density on bias in population size estimation using some common mark-recapture estimators.

Publications

Effects of social organization, trap arrangement and density, sampling scale, and population density on bias in population size estimation using some common mark-recapture estimators.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets