4.4 Article

Dealing with detection error in site occupancy surveys: what can we do with a single survey?

期刊

JOURNAL OF PLANT ECOLOGY
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 22-31

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jpe/rtr042

关键词

abundance estimation; biodiversity; BBS; closed population; data cloning; penalized likelihood; species occurrence

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  2. Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Initiative
  3. Environment Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Site occupancy probabilities of target species are commonly used in various ecological studies, e.g. to monitor current status and trends in biodiversity. Detection error introduces bias in the estimators of site occupancy. Existing methods for estimating occupancy probability in the presence of detection error use replicate surveys. These methods assume population closure, i.e. the site occupancy status remains constant across surveys, and independence between surveys. We present an approach for estimating site occupancy probability in the presence of detection error that requires only a single survey and does not require assumption of population closure or independence. In place of the closure assumption, this method requires covariates that affect detection and occupancy. Penalized maximum-likelihood method was used to estimate the parameters. Estimability of the parameters was checked using data cloning. Parametric boostrapping method was used for computing confidence intervals. The single-survey approach facilitates analysis of historical datasets where replicate surveys are unavailable, situations where replicate surveys are expensive to conduct and when the assumptions of closure or independence are not met. This method saves significant amounts of time, energy and money in ecological surveys without sacrificing statistical validity. Further, we show that occupancy and habitat suitability are not synonymous and suggest a method to estimate habitat suitability using single-survey data.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据