4.3 Article

Evaluating sources of censoring and truncation in telemetry-based survival data

Journal

JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
Volume 80, Issue 1, Pages 138-148

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.991

Keywords

bias; detection probability; interval censoring; Kaplan-Meier; known fate; radio-telemetry; Rangifer tarandus; survival

Funding

  1. Alberta Conservation Association
  2. Government of Alberta Department of Sustainable Resource Development
  3. British Columbia Ministry of the Environment
  4. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
  5. Canadian Forest Products
  6. Foothills Research Institute
  7. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
  8. Montana Institute on Ecosystems
  9. NSF EPSCoR [EPS-1101342]
  10. National Aeronautic and Space Agency (NASA) [NNX11AO47G]
  11. NSERC
  12. Petroleum Technology Alliance of Canada
  13. Parks Canada
  14. Royal Dutch Shell Canada
  15. University of Alberta
  16. University of Calgary
  17. University of Montana
  18. West Central Alberta Caribou Committee
  19. Weyerhaeuser Company
  20. World Wildlife Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bias in vital rate estimation may come from failing to meet a variety of assumptions during the stages of sampling, monitoring, and analysis, though most are not commonly addressed in published studies. Here, we pay specific attention to various forms of censoring and truncation that present challenges for telemetry-based monitoring of survival. We use simulations to assess how uncertainty about times of death and imperfect detection probabilities affect Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. We then treat monitoring of threatened woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in west-central Alberta as a case study to test for potential effects of non-random right censoring and interval censoring on survival estimates. We report that monitoring frequency (e.g., daily vs. monthly) and associated uncertainty about the exact time of death do not inherently induce bias on Kaplan-Meier point estimates of survival nor affect estimates of variance. Removing individuals from the at-risk pool during intervals for which they were not detected did induce a negative bias on resulting survival estimates when the probability of detection was independent of the animals' fates. We recommend using subsequent detections to impute animals' fates during missed intervals in such cases when all animals' fates are eventually known or permanently right censored and when missed detections are not related to changes in mortality risk. Although some assumptions remain difficult to test and of continued concern, we find no evidence of biases in the methodology of Alberta's woodland caribou monitoring program. Our results lend credence to recent evidence of widespread declines in woodland caribou populations across the province. (c) 2015 The Wildlife Society.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available