Data from: Pairing field methods to improve inference in wildlife surveys while accommodating detection covariance ...
It is common to use multiple field sampling methods when implementing wildlife surveys to compare method efficacy or cost-efficiency, integrate distinct pieces of information provided by separate methods, or evaluate method-specific biases and misclassification error. Existing models that combine in...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Dataset |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Dryad
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.4mt00 https://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.4mt00 |
| Summary: | It is common to use multiple field sampling methods when implementing wildlife surveys to compare method efficacy or cost-efficiency, integrate distinct pieces of information provided by separate methods, or evaluate method-specific biases and misclassification error. Existing models that combine information from multiple field methods or sampling devices permit rigorous comparison of method-specific detection parameters, enable estimation of additional parameters such as false-positive detection probability, and improve occurrence or abundance estimates, but with the assumption that the separate sampling methods produce detections independently of one another. This assumption is tenuous if methods are paired or deployed in close proximity simultaneously, a common practice that reduces the additional effort required to implement multiple methods and reduces the risk that differences between method-specific detection parameters are confounded by other environmental factors. We develop occupancy and spatial ... : Fisher DetectionsThe binary detection history of fisher via camera at non-invasive detection stations. Fisher detections were used as a covariate for the probability of falsely detecting American marten; the dimensions of the file represent the number of detection stations (238 rows) and the maximum number of sampling occasions (9 columns) for any given station; 0 indicates no fisher detection, 1 indicates fisher detection, and NA indicates the station was not active for a particular check.Fisher.csvMartenOccupancyEncountersEncounter history for American martens at 238 detection stations in Maine, used to model marten occurrence. Rows represent unique stations (238), columns represent sampling occasions (maximum of 9). Cell values correspond to detection outcomes: 1 indicates a marten was detected by a camera only, 2 indicates a marten was detected via snow-tracking, 3 indicates that both a camera image and marten snow tracks were observed, and 4 indicates no marten detection.Detection Station LocationsThis ... |
|---|