Cargando…

Precision gain versus effort with joint models using detection/non‐detection and banding data

Capture–recapture techniques provide valuable information, but are often more cost‐prohibitive at large spatial and temporal scales than less‐intensive sampling techniques. Model development combining multiple data sources to leverage data source strengths and for improved parameter precision has in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sanderlin, Jamie S., Block, William M., Strohmeyer, Brenda E., Saab, Victoria A., Ganey, Joseph L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6362443/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30766670
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4825
_version_ 1783392919545184256
author Sanderlin, Jamie S.
Block, William M.
Strohmeyer, Brenda E.
Saab, Victoria A.
Ganey, Joseph L.
author_facet Sanderlin, Jamie S.
Block, William M.
Strohmeyer, Brenda E.
Saab, Victoria A.
Ganey, Joseph L.
author_sort Sanderlin, Jamie S.
collection PubMed
description Capture–recapture techniques provide valuable information, but are often more cost‐prohibitive at large spatial and temporal scales than less‐intensive sampling techniques. Model development combining multiple data sources to leverage data source strengths and for improved parameter precision has increased, but with limited discussion on precision gain versus effort. We present a general framework for evaluating trade‐offs between precision gained and costs associated with acquiring multiple data sources, useful for designing future or new phases of current studies.We illustrated how Bayesian hierarchical joint models using detection/non‐detection and banding data can improve abundance, survival, and recruitment inference, and quantified data source costs in a northern Arizona, USA, western bluebird (Sialia mexicana) population. We used an 8‐year detection/non‐detection (distributed across the landscape) and banding (subset of locations within landscape) data set to estimate parameters. We constructed separate models using detection/non‐detection and banding data, and a joint model using both data types to evaluate parameter precision gain relative to effort.Joint model parameter estimates were more precise than single data model estimates, but parameter precision varied (apparent survival > abundance > recruitment). Banding provided greater apparent survival precision than detection/non‐detection data. Therefore, little precision was gained when detection/non‐detection data were added to banding data. Additional costs were minimal; however, additional spatial coverage and ability to estimate abundance and recruitment improved inference. Conversely, more precision was gained when adding banding to detection/non‐detection data at higher cost. Spatial coverage was identical, yet survival and abundance estimates were more precise. Justification of increased costs associated with additional data types depends on project objectives.We illustrate a general framework for evaluating precision gain relative to effort, applicable to joint data models with any data type combination. This framework evaluates costs and benefits from and effort levels between multiple data types, thus improving population monitoring designs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6362443
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63624432019-02-14 Precision gain versus effort with joint models using detection/non‐detection and banding data Sanderlin, Jamie S. Block, William M. Strohmeyer, Brenda E. Saab, Victoria A. Ganey, Joseph L. Ecol Evol Original Research Capture–recapture techniques provide valuable information, but are often more cost‐prohibitive at large spatial and temporal scales than less‐intensive sampling techniques. Model development combining multiple data sources to leverage data source strengths and for improved parameter precision has increased, but with limited discussion on precision gain versus effort. We present a general framework for evaluating trade‐offs between precision gained and costs associated with acquiring multiple data sources, useful for designing future or new phases of current studies.We illustrated how Bayesian hierarchical joint models using detection/non‐detection and banding data can improve abundance, survival, and recruitment inference, and quantified data source costs in a northern Arizona, USA, western bluebird (Sialia mexicana) population. We used an 8‐year detection/non‐detection (distributed across the landscape) and banding (subset of locations within landscape) data set to estimate parameters. We constructed separate models using detection/non‐detection and banding data, and a joint model using both data types to evaluate parameter precision gain relative to effort.Joint model parameter estimates were more precise than single data model estimates, but parameter precision varied (apparent survival > abundance > recruitment). Banding provided greater apparent survival precision than detection/non‐detection data. Therefore, little precision was gained when detection/non‐detection data were added to banding data. Additional costs were minimal; however, additional spatial coverage and ability to estimate abundance and recruitment improved inference. Conversely, more precision was gained when adding banding to detection/non‐detection data at higher cost. Spatial coverage was identical, yet survival and abundance estimates were more precise. Justification of increased costs associated with additional data types depends on project objectives.We illustrate a general framework for evaluating precision gain relative to effort, applicable to joint data models with any data type combination. This framework evaluates costs and benefits from and effort levels between multiple data types, thus improving population monitoring designs. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-02-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6362443/ /pubmed/30766670 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4825 Text en Published 2018. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Sanderlin, Jamie S.
Block, William M.
Strohmeyer, Brenda E.
Saab, Victoria A.
Ganey, Joseph L.
Precision gain versus effort with joint models using detection/non‐detection and banding data
title Precision gain versus effort with joint models using detection/non‐detection and banding data
title_full Precision gain versus effort with joint models using detection/non‐detection and banding data
title_fullStr Precision gain versus effort with joint models using detection/non‐detection and banding data
title_full_unstemmed Precision gain versus effort with joint models using detection/non‐detection and banding data
title_short Precision gain versus effort with joint models using detection/non‐detection and banding data
title_sort precision gain versus effort with joint models using detection/non‐detection and banding data
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6362443/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30766670
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4825
work_keys_str_mv AT sanderlinjamies precisiongainversuseffortwithjointmodelsusingdetectionnondetectionandbandingdata
AT blockwilliamm precisiongainversuseffortwithjointmodelsusingdetectionnondetectionandbandingdata
AT strohmeyerbrendae precisiongainversuseffortwithjointmodelsusingdetectionnondetectionandbandingdata
AT saabvictoriaa precisiongainversuseffortwithjointmodelsusingdetectionnondetectionandbandingdata
AT ganeyjosephl precisiongainversuseffortwithjointmodelsusingdetectionnondetectionandbandingdata