Compensatory heterogeneity in spatially explicit capture–recapture data

Spatially explicit capture–recapture methods, used widely to estimate the abundance of large carnivores, allow for movement within home ranges during sampling. Probability of detection is a decreasing function of distance from the home range center, with one parameter for magnitude and another for s...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Ecology
Main Authors: Efford, M. G., Mowat, G.
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2014
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/13-1497.1
https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1890%2F13-1497.1
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1890/13-1497.1
id crwiley:10.1890/13-1497.1
record_format openpolar
spelling crwiley:10.1890/13-1497.1 2024-09-15T18:40:14+00:00 Compensatory heterogeneity in spatially explicit capture–recapture data Efford, M. G. Mowat, G. 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/13-1497.1 https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1890%2F13-1497.1 https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1890/13-1497.1 en eng Wiley http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor Ecology volume 95, issue 5, page 1341-1348 ISSN 0012-9658 1939-9170 journal-article 2014 crwiley https://doi.org/10.1890/13-1497.1 2024-08-01T04:23:43Z Spatially explicit capture–recapture methods, used widely to estimate the abundance of large carnivores, allow for movement within home ranges during sampling. Probability of detection is a decreasing function of distance from the home range center, with one parameter for magnitude and another for spatial scale. Sex‐based and other differences in home range size potentially cause heterogeneity in individual detection and bias in estimates of density. The two parameters of detection have hitherto been treated as independent, but we suggest that an inverse relation is expected when detection probability depends on time spent near the detector. Variation in the spatial scale of detection is then compensated by reciprocal variation in the magnitude parameter. We define a net measure of detection (“single‐detector sampling area,” a 0 ), and show by simulation that its coefficient of variation (CV) is a better predictor of bias than the CV of either component or the sum of their squared CVs. In an example using the grizzly bear Ursus arctos , the estimated sex variation in a 0 was small despite large variation in each component. From the simulations, the relative bias of density estimates was generally negligible (<5%) when CV( a 0 ) < 30%. Parameterization of the detection model in terms of a 0 and spatial scale can be more parsimonious and significantly aids the biological interpretation of detection parameters. Article in Journal/Newspaper Ursus arctos Wiley Online Library Ecology 95 5 1341 1348
institution Open Polar
collection Wiley Online Library
op_collection_id crwiley
language English
description Spatially explicit capture–recapture methods, used widely to estimate the abundance of large carnivores, allow for movement within home ranges during sampling. Probability of detection is a decreasing function of distance from the home range center, with one parameter for magnitude and another for spatial scale. Sex‐based and other differences in home range size potentially cause heterogeneity in individual detection and bias in estimates of density. The two parameters of detection have hitherto been treated as independent, but we suggest that an inverse relation is expected when detection probability depends on time spent near the detector. Variation in the spatial scale of detection is then compensated by reciprocal variation in the magnitude parameter. We define a net measure of detection (“single‐detector sampling area,” a 0 ), and show by simulation that its coefficient of variation (CV) is a better predictor of bias than the CV of either component or the sum of their squared CVs. In an example using the grizzly bear Ursus arctos , the estimated sex variation in a 0 was small despite large variation in each component. From the simulations, the relative bias of density estimates was generally negligible (<5%) when CV( a 0 ) < 30%. Parameterization of the detection model in terms of a 0 and spatial scale can be more parsimonious and significantly aids the biological interpretation of detection parameters.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Efford, M. G.
Mowat, G.
spellingShingle Efford, M. G.
Mowat, G.
Compensatory heterogeneity in spatially explicit capture–recapture data
author_facet Efford, M. G.
Mowat, G.
author_sort Efford, M. G.
title Compensatory heterogeneity in spatially explicit capture–recapture data
title_short Compensatory heterogeneity in spatially explicit capture–recapture data
title_full Compensatory heterogeneity in spatially explicit capture–recapture data
title_fullStr Compensatory heterogeneity in spatially explicit capture–recapture data
title_full_unstemmed Compensatory heterogeneity in spatially explicit capture–recapture data
title_sort compensatory heterogeneity in spatially explicit capture–recapture data
publisher Wiley
publishDate 2014
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/13-1497.1
https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1890%2F13-1497.1
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1890/13-1497.1
genre Ursus arctos
genre_facet Ursus arctos
op_source Ecology
volume 95, issue 5, page 1341-1348
ISSN 0012-9658 1939-9170
op_rights http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1890/13-1497.1
container_title Ecology
container_volume 95
container_issue 5
container_start_page 1341
op_container_end_page 1348
_version_ 1810484544763068416