4.4 Article

Improving in-water estimates of marine turtle abundance by adjusting aerial survey counts for perception and availability biases

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jembe.2015.05.003

Keywords

Abundance estimation; Aerial surveys; Availability bias; Detection bias; Detection probability; Marine turtles; Perception bias

Funding

  1. National Environmental Research Program
  2. Australian Marine Mammal Centre
  3. Torres Strait Regional Authority

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aerial surveys are often used to estimate wildlife abundance. The probability of detecting an animal during a survey involves two processes: (1) availability bias when animals present in the search area are not available for detection and (2) perception bias, when some animals potentially visible to observers are missed. Estimating these two sources of bias can lead to improved abundance estimates. However, to date, no marine turtle aerial survey has quantified both biases. To improve in-water marine turtle abundance estimates from aerial counts we estimated: (1) perception bias using independent tandem observers and mark recapture models, and (2) availability bias by quantifying the effect of turtle diving behaviour and environmental conditions on the detection probability of turtles. We compared unadjusted and adjusted abundance estimates to evaluate the effects of these detection biases in aerial surveys. Adjusted data produced a substantially higher estimate of turtles than the unadjusted data. Adjusting for availability bias increased the estimates 18.7 times; adjusting for perception bias resulted in a further 5% increase. These results emphasize the need to consider availability and perception corrections to obtain robust abundance estimates. This approach has application for aerial surveys for other marine wildlife including marine mammals and large sharks. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available