Hierarchical Bayesian analysis of capture–mark–recapture data

We present a hierarchical Bayesian model (HBM) for capture–mark–recapture (CMR) data analysis. It aims at estimating the probability of capture (θ i ) and the total population size (N i ) in a series of I years i = 1,...,I. The HBM assumes that the θ i s and N i s are sampled from a common probabili...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
Main Authors: Rivot, E, Prévost, E
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Canadian Science Publishing 2002
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/f02-145
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/f02-145
id crcansciencepubl:10.1139/f02-145
record_format openpolar
spelling crcansciencepubl:10.1139/f02-145 2023-12-17T10:27:26+01:00 Hierarchical Bayesian analysis of capture–mark–recapture data Rivot, E Prévost, E 2002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/f02-145 http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/f02-145 en eng Canadian Science Publishing http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/page/about/CorporateTextAndDataMining Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences volume 59, issue 11, page 1768-1784 ISSN 0706-652X 1205-7533 Aquatic Science Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics journal-article 2002 crcansciencepubl https://doi.org/10.1139/f02-145 2023-11-19T13:38:39Z We present a hierarchical Bayesian model (HBM) for capture–mark–recapture (CMR) data analysis. It aims at estimating the probability of capture (θ i ) and the total population size (N i ) in a series of I years i = 1,...,I. The HBM assumes that the θ i s and N i s are sampled from a common probability distribution with unknown parameters. It is compared with the model assuming independence between years in the θ i s and N i s (ABM). We show how a transfer of information between years is organized by the HBM. We compare the merits of HBM vs. ABM to estimate the spawning run and smolt run of an Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) population of the River Oir (France) over a period of 17 years. In the spawners case, yearly data are poorly informative. Consequently, the HBM greatly improves posterior inferences compared with the ABM in terms of dispersion and robustness to the choice of prior. In the smolts case, the HBM does not significantly improve inferences compared with the ABM because data are more informative. We discuss why hierarchical modeling should be recommended in any ecological study where the data are collected on several sampling units that share some common features. Article in Journal/Newspaper Atlantic salmon Salmo salar Canadian Science Publishing (via Crossref) Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59 11 1768 1784
institution Open Polar
collection Canadian Science Publishing (via Crossref)
op_collection_id crcansciencepubl
language English
topic Aquatic Science
Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
spellingShingle Aquatic Science
Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Rivot, E
Prévost, E
Hierarchical Bayesian analysis of capture–mark–recapture data
topic_facet Aquatic Science
Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
description We present a hierarchical Bayesian model (HBM) for capture–mark–recapture (CMR) data analysis. It aims at estimating the probability of capture (θ i ) and the total population size (N i ) in a series of I years i = 1,...,I. The HBM assumes that the θ i s and N i s are sampled from a common probability distribution with unknown parameters. It is compared with the model assuming independence between years in the θ i s and N i s (ABM). We show how a transfer of information between years is organized by the HBM. We compare the merits of HBM vs. ABM to estimate the spawning run and smolt run of an Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) population of the River Oir (France) over a period of 17 years. In the spawners case, yearly data are poorly informative. Consequently, the HBM greatly improves posterior inferences compared with the ABM in terms of dispersion and robustness to the choice of prior. In the smolts case, the HBM does not significantly improve inferences compared with the ABM because data are more informative. We discuss why hierarchical modeling should be recommended in any ecological study where the data are collected on several sampling units that share some common features.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Rivot, E
Prévost, E
author_facet Rivot, E
Prévost, E
author_sort Rivot, E
title Hierarchical Bayesian analysis of capture–mark–recapture data
title_short Hierarchical Bayesian analysis of capture–mark–recapture data
title_full Hierarchical Bayesian analysis of capture–mark–recapture data
title_fullStr Hierarchical Bayesian analysis of capture–mark–recapture data
title_full_unstemmed Hierarchical Bayesian analysis of capture–mark–recapture data
title_sort hierarchical bayesian analysis of capture–mark–recapture data
publisher Canadian Science Publishing
publishDate 2002
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/f02-145
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/f02-145
genre Atlantic salmon
Salmo salar
genre_facet Atlantic salmon
Salmo salar
op_source Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
volume 59, issue 11, page 1768-1784
ISSN 0706-652X 1205-7533
op_rights http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/page/about/CorporateTextAndDataMining
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1139/f02-145
container_title Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
container_volume 59
container_issue 11
container_start_page 1768
op_container_end_page 1784
_version_ 1785579296228638720