4.7 Article

Optimal sampling design for spatial capture-recapture

Journal

ECOLOGY
Volume 102, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ecy.3262

Keywords

camera traps; density; genetic algorithm; optimal design; sampling design; SCR; spatial capture-recapture; spatial sampling; spatially explicit capture-recapture; trap spacing

Categories

Funding

  1. Sabin Snow Leopard Leopard Grant Program/Panthera
  2. Pakistan Snow Leopard and Ecosystem Protection Program
  3. Snow Leopard Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study proposes using a genetic algorithm to optimize sampling designs and compares the performance of designs based on different model-based criteria, finding that these designs outperform existing recommendations in terms of bias, precision, and accuracy in population size estimation.
Spatial capture-recapture (SCR) has emerged as the industry standard for estimating population density by leveraging information from spatial locations of repeat encounters of individuals. The precision of density estimates depends fundamentally on the number and spatial configuration of traps. Despite this knowledge, existing sampling design recommendations are heuristic and their performance remains untested for most practical applications. To address this issue, we propose a genetic algorithm that minimizes any sensible, criteria-based objective function to produce near-optimal sampling designs. To motivate the idea of optimality, we compare the performance of designs optimized using three model-based criteria related to the probability of capture. We use simulation to show that these designs outperform those based on existing recommendations in terms of bias, precision, and accuracy in the estimation of population size. Our approach, available as a function in the R package oSCR, allows conservation practitioners and researchers to generate customized and improved sampling designs for wildlife monitoring.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available