Cargando…
Reliability of Different Mark-Recapture Methods for Population Size Estimation Tested against Reference Population Sizes Constructed from Field Data
Reliable estimates of population size are fundamental in many ecological studies and biodiversity conservation. Selecting appropriate methods to estimate abundance is often very difficult, especially if data are scarce. Most studies concerning the reliability of different estimators used simulation...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4045897/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24896260 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098840 |
_version_ | 1782319404864765952 |
---|---|
author | Grimm, Annegret Gruber, Bernd Henle, Klaus |
author_facet | Grimm, Annegret Gruber, Bernd Henle, Klaus |
author_sort | Grimm, Annegret |
collection | PubMed |
description | Reliable estimates of population size are fundamental in many ecological studies and biodiversity conservation. Selecting appropriate methods to estimate abundance is often very difficult, especially if data are scarce. Most studies concerning the reliability of different estimators used simulation data based on assumptions about capture variability that do not necessarily reflect conditions in natural populations. Here, we used data from an intensively studied closed population of the arboreal gecko Gehyra variegata to construct reference population sizes for assessing twelve different population size estimators in terms of bias, precision, accuracy, and their 95%-confidence intervals. Two of the reference populations reflect natural biological entities, whereas the other reference populations reflect artificial subsets of the population. Since individual heterogeneity was assumed, we tested modifications of the Lincoln-Petersen estimator, a set of models in programs MARK and CARE-2, and a truncated geometric distribution. Ranking of methods was similar across criteria. Models accounting for individual heterogeneity performed best in all assessment criteria. For populations from heterogeneous habitats without obvious covariates explaining individual heterogeneity, we recommend using the moment estimator or the interpolated jackknife estimator (both implemented in CAPTURE/MARK). If data for capture frequencies are substantial, we recommend the sample coverage or the estimating equation (both models implemented in CARE-2). Depending on the distribution of catchabilities, our proposed multiple Lincoln-Petersen and a truncated geometric distribution obtained comparably good results. The former usually resulted in a minimum population size and the latter can be recommended when there is a long tail of low capture probabilities. Models with covariates and mixture models performed poorly. Our approach identified suitable methods and extended options to evaluate the performance of mark-recapture population size estimators under field conditions, which is essential for selecting an appropriate method and obtaining reliable results in ecology and conservation biology, and thus for sound management. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4045897 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-40458972014-06-09 Reliability of Different Mark-Recapture Methods for Population Size Estimation Tested against Reference Population Sizes Constructed from Field Data Grimm, Annegret Gruber, Bernd Henle, Klaus PLoS One Research Article Reliable estimates of population size are fundamental in many ecological studies and biodiversity conservation. Selecting appropriate methods to estimate abundance is often very difficult, especially if data are scarce. Most studies concerning the reliability of different estimators used simulation data based on assumptions about capture variability that do not necessarily reflect conditions in natural populations. Here, we used data from an intensively studied closed population of the arboreal gecko Gehyra variegata to construct reference population sizes for assessing twelve different population size estimators in terms of bias, precision, accuracy, and their 95%-confidence intervals. Two of the reference populations reflect natural biological entities, whereas the other reference populations reflect artificial subsets of the population. Since individual heterogeneity was assumed, we tested modifications of the Lincoln-Petersen estimator, a set of models in programs MARK and CARE-2, and a truncated geometric distribution. Ranking of methods was similar across criteria. Models accounting for individual heterogeneity performed best in all assessment criteria. For populations from heterogeneous habitats without obvious covariates explaining individual heterogeneity, we recommend using the moment estimator or the interpolated jackknife estimator (both implemented in CAPTURE/MARK). If data for capture frequencies are substantial, we recommend the sample coverage or the estimating equation (both models implemented in CARE-2). Depending on the distribution of catchabilities, our proposed multiple Lincoln-Petersen and a truncated geometric distribution obtained comparably good results. The former usually resulted in a minimum population size and the latter can be recommended when there is a long tail of low capture probabilities. Models with covariates and mixture models performed poorly. Our approach identified suitable methods and extended options to evaluate the performance of mark-recapture population size estimators under field conditions, which is essential for selecting an appropriate method and obtaining reliable results in ecology and conservation biology, and thus for sound management. Public Library of Science 2014-06-04 /pmc/articles/PMC4045897/ /pubmed/24896260 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098840 Text en © 2014 Grimm et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Grimm, Annegret Gruber, Bernd Henle, Klaus Reliability of Different Mark-Recapture Methods for Population Size Estimation Tested against Reference Population Sizes Constructed from Field Data |
title | Reliability of Different Mark-Recapture Methods for Population Size Estimation Tested against Reference Population Sizes Constructed from Field Data |
title_full | Reliability of Different Mark-Recapture Methods for Population Size Estimation Tested against Reference Population Sizes Constructed from Field Data |
title_fullStr | Reliability of Different Mark-Recapture Methods for Population Size Estimation Tested against Reference Population Sizes Constructed from Field Data |
title_full_unstemmed | Reliability of Different Mark-Recapture Methods for Population Size Estimation Tested against Reference Population Sizes Constructed from Field Data |
title_short | Reliability of Different Mark-Recapture Methods for Population Size Estimation Tested against Reference Population Sizes Constructed from Field Data |
title_sort | reliability of different mark-recapture methods for population size estimation tested against reference population sizes constructed from field data |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4045897/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24896260 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098840 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT grimmannegret reliabilityofdifferentmarkrecapturemethodsforpopulationsizeestimationtestedagainstreferencepopulationsizesconstructedfromfielddata AT gruberbernd reliabilityofdifferentmarkrecapturemethodsforpopulationsizeestimationtestedagainstreferencepopulationsizesconstructedfromfielddata AT henleklaus reliabilityofdifferentmarkrecapturemethodsforpopulationsizeestimationtestedagainstreferencepopulationsizesconstructedfromfielddata |