Cargando…

Robustness of close‐kin mark–recapture estimators to dispersal limitation and spatially varying sampling probabilities

1. Close‐kin mark–recapture (CKMR) is a method for estimating abundance and vital rates from kinship relationships observed in genetic samples. CKMR inference only requires animals to be sampled once (e.g., lethally), potentially widening the scope of population‐level inference relative to tradition...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Conn, Paul B., Bravington, Mark V., Baylis, Shane, Ver Hoef, Jay M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7319163/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32607174
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6296
_version_ 1783551000992284672
author Conn, Paul B.
Bravington, Mark V.
Baylis, Shane
Ver Hoef, Jay M.
author_facet Conn, Paul B.
Bravington, Mark V.
Baylis, Shane
Ver Hoef, Jay M.
author_sort Conn, Paul B.
collection PubMed
description 1. Close‐kin mark–recapture (CKMR) is a method for estimating abundance and vital rates from kinship relationships observed in genetic samples. CKMR inference only requires animals to be sampled once (e.g., lethally), potentially widening the scope of population‐level inference relative to traditional monitoring programs. 2. One assumption of CKMR is that, conditional on individual covariates like age, all animals have an equal probability of being sampled. However, if genetic data are collected opportunistically (e.g., via hunters or fishers), there is potential for spatial variation in sampling probability that can bias CKMR estimators, particularly when genetically related individuals stay in close proximity. 3. We used individual‐based simulation to investigate consequences of dispersal limitation and spatially biased sampling on performance of naive (nonspatial) CKMR estimators of abundance, fecundity, and adult survival. Population dynamics approximated that of a long‐lived mammal species subject to lethal sampling. 4. Naive CKMR abundance estimators were relatively unbiased when dispersal was unconstrained (i.e., complete mixing) or when sampling was random or subject to moderate levels of spatial variation. When dispersal was limited, extreme variation in spatial sampling probabilities negatively biased abundance estimates. Reproductive schedules and survival were well estimated, except for survival when adults could emigrate out of the sampled area. Incomplete mixing was readily detected using Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests. 5. Although CKMR appears promising for estimating abundance and vital rates with opportunistically collected genetic data, care is needed when dispersal limitation is coupled with spatially biased sampling. Fortunately, incomplete mixing is easily detected with adequate sample sizes. In principle, it is possible to devise and fit spatially explicit CKMR models to avoid bias under dispersal limitation, but development of such models necessitates additional complexity (and possibly additional data). We suggest using simulation studies to examine potential bias and precision of proposed modeling approaches prior to implementing a CKMR program.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7319163
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73191632020-06-29 Robustness of close‐kin mark–recapture estimators to dispersal limitation and spatially varying sampling probabilities Conn, Paul B. Bravington, Mark V. Baylis, Shane Ver Hoef, Jay M. Ecol Evol Original Research 1. Close‐kin mark–recapture (CKMR) is a method for estimating abundance and vital rates from kinship relationships observed in genetic samples. CKMR inference only requires animals to be sampled once (e.g., lethally), potentially widening the scope of population‐level inference relative to traditional monitoring programs. 2. One assumption of CKMR is that, conditional on individual covariates like age, all animals have an equal probability of being sampled. However, if genetic data are collected opportunistically (e.g., via hunters or fishers), there is potential for spatial variation in sampling probability that can bias CKMR estimators, particularly when genetically related individuals stay in close proximity. 3. We used individual‐based simulation to investigate consequences of dispersal limitation and spatially biased sampling on performance of naive (nonspatial) CKMR estimators of abundance, fecundity, and adult survival. Population dynamics approximated that of a long‐lived mammal species subject to lethal sampling. 4. Naive CKMR abundance estimators were relatively unbiased when dispersal was unconstrained (i.e., complete mixing) or when sampling was random or subject to moderate levels of spatial variation. When dispersal was limited, extreme variation in spatial sampling probabilities negatively biased abundance estimates. Reproductive schedules and survival were well estimated, except for survival when adults could emigrate out of the sampled area. Incomplete mixing was readily detected using Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests. 5. Although CKMR appears promising for estimating abundance and vital rates with opportunistically collected genetic data, care is needed when dispersal limitation is coupled with spatially biased sampling. Fortunately, incomplete mixing is easily detected with adequate sample sizes. In principle, it is possible to devise and fit spatially explicit CKMR models to avoid bias under dispersal limitation, but development of such models necessitates additional complexity (and possibly additional data). We suggest using simulation studies to examine potential bias and precision of proposed modeling approaches prior to implementing a CKMR program. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-05-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7319163/ /pubmed/32607174 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6296 Text en © 2020 The Authors. 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
Conn, Paul B.
Bravington, Mark V.
Baylis, Shane
Ver Hoef, Jay M.
Robustness of close‐kin mark–recapture estimators to dispersal limitation and spatially varying sampling probabilities
title Robustness of close‐kin mark–recapture estimators to dispersal limitation and spatially varying sampling probabilities
title_full Robustness of close‐kin mark–recapture estimators to dispersal limitation and spatially varying sampling probabilities
title_fullStr Robustness of close‐kin mark–recapture estimators to dispersal limitation and spatially varying sampling probabilities
title_full_unstemmed Robustness of close‐kin mark–recapture estimators to dispersal limitation and spatially varying sampling probabilities
title_short Robustness of close‐kin mark–recapture estimators to dispersal limitation and spatially varying sampling probabilities
title_sort robustness of close‐kin mark–recapture estimators to dispersal limitation and spatially varying sampling probabilities
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7319163/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32607174
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6296
work_keys_str_mv AT connpaulb robustnessofclosekinmarkrecaptureestimatorstodispersallimitationandspatiallyvaryingsamplingprobabilities
AT bravingtonmarkv robustnessofclosekinmarkrecaptureestimatorstodispersallimitationandspatiallyvaryingsamplingprobabilities
AT baylisshane robustnessofclosekinmarkrecaptureestimatorstodispersallimitationandspatiallyvaryingsamplingprobabilities
AT verhoefjaym robustnessofclosekinmarkrecaptureestimatorstodispersallimitationandspatiallyvaryingsamplingprobabilities