Cargando…

Errors in aerial survey count data: Identifying pitfalls and solutions

Accurate estimates of animal abundance are essential for guiding effective management, and poor survey data can produce misleading inferences. Aerial surveys are an efficient survey platform, capable of collecting wildlife data across large spatial extents in short timeframes. However, these surveys...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Davis, Kayla L., Silverman, Emily D., Sussman, Allison L., Wilson, R. Randy, Zipkin, Elise F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8931709/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35342571
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8733
_version_ 1784671317292744704
author Davis, Kayla L.
Silverman, Emily D.
Sussman, Allison L.
Wilson, R. Randy
Zipkin, Elise F.
author_facet Davis, Kayla L.
Silverman, Emily D.
Sussman, Allison L.
Wilson, R. Randy
Zipkin, Elise F.
author_sort Davis, Kayla L.
collection PubMed
description Accurate estimates of animal abundance are essential for guiding effective management, and poor survey data can produce misleading inferences. Aerial surveys are an efficient survey platform, capable of collecting wildlife data across large spatial extents in short timeframes. However, these surveys can yield unreliable data if not carefully executed. Despite a long history of aerial survey use in ecological research, problems common to aerial surveys have not yet been adequately resolved. Through an extensive review of the aerial survey literature over the last 50 years, we evaluated how common problems encountered in the data (including nondetection, counting error, and species misidentification) can manifest, the potential difficulties conferred, and the history of how these challenges have been addressed. Additionally, we used a double‐observer case study focused on waterbird data collected via aerial surveys and an online group (flock) counting quiz to explore the potential extent of each challenge and possible resolutions. We found that nearly three quarters of the aerial survey methodology literature focused on accounting for nondetection errors, while issues of counting error and misidentification were less commonly addressed. Through our case study, we demonstrated how these challenges can prove problematic by detailing the extent and magnitude of potential errors. Using our online quiz, we showed that aerial observers typically undercount group size and that the magnitude of counting errors increases with group size. Our results illustrate how each issue can act to bias inferences, highlighting the importance of considering individual methods for mitigating potential problems separately during survey design and analysis. We synthesized the information gained from our analyses to evaluate strategies for overcoming the challenges of using aerial survey data to estimate wildlife abundance, such as digital data collection methods, pooling species records by family, and ordinal modeling using binned data. Recognizing conditions that can lead to data collection errors and having reasonable solutions for addressing errors can allow researchers to allocate resources effectively to mitigate the most significant challenges for obtaining reliable aerial survey data.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8931709
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89317092022-03-24 Errors in aerial survey count data: Identifying pitfalls and solutions Davis, Kayla L. Silverman, Emily D. Sussman, Allison L. Wilson, R. Randy Zipkin, Elise F. Ecol Evol Review Articles Accurate estimates of animal abundance are essential for guiding effective management, and poor survey data can produce misleading inferences. Aerial surveys are an efficient survey platform, capable of collecting wildlife data across large spatial extents in short timeframes. However, these surveys can yield unreliable data if not carefully executed. Despite a long history of aerial survey use in ecological research, problems common to aerial surveys have not yet been adequately resolved. Through an extensive review of the aerial survey literature over the last 50 years, we evaluated how common problems encountered in the data (including nondetection, counting error, and species misidentification) can manifest, the potential difficulties conferred, and the history of how these challenges have been addressed. Additionally, we used a double‐observer case study focused on waterbird data collected via aerial surveys and an online group (flock) counting quiz to explore the potential extent of each challenge and possible resolutions. We found that nearly three quarters of the aerial survey methodology literature focused on accounting for nondetection errors, while issues of counting error and misidentification were less commonly addressed. Through our case study, we demonstrated how these challenges can prove problematic by detailing the extent and magnitude of potential errors. Using our online quiz, we showed that aerial observers typically undercount group size and that the magnitude of counting errors increases with group size. Our results illustrate how each issue can act to bias inferences, highlighting the importance of considering individual methods for mitigating potential problems separately during survey design and analysis. We synthesized the information gained from our analyses to evaluate strategies for overcoming the challenges of using aerial survey data to estimate wildlife abundance, such as digital data collection methods, pooling species records by family, and ordinal modeling using binned data. Recognizing conditions that can lead to data collection errors and having reasonable solutions for addressing errors can allow researchers to allocate resources effectively to mitigate the most significant challenges for obtaining reliable aerial survey data. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-03-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8931709/ /pubmed/35342571 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8733 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review Articles
Davis, Kayla L.
Silverman, Emily D.
Sussman, Allison L.
Wilson, R. Randy
Zipkin, Elise F.
Errors in aerial survey count data: Identifying pitfalls and solutions
title Errors in aerial survey count data: Identifying pitfalls and solutions
title_full Errors in aerial survey count data: Identifying pitfalls and solutions
title_fullStr Errors in aerial survey count data: Identifying pitfalls and solutions
title_full_unstemmed Errors in aerial survey count data: Identifying pitfalls and solutions
title_short Errors in aerial survey count data: Identifying pitfalls and solutions
title_sort errors in aerial survey count data: identifying pitfalls and solutions
topic Review Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8931709/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35342571
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8733
work_keys_str_mv AT daviskaylal errorsinaerialsurveycountdataidentifyingpitfallsandsolutions
AT silvermanemilyd errorsinaerialsurveycountdataidentifyingpitfallsandsolutions
AT sussmanallisonl errorsinaerialsurveycountdataidentifyingpitfallsandsolutions
AT wilsonrrandy errorsinaerialsurveycountdataidentifyingpitfallsandsolutions
AT zipkinelisef errorsinaerialsurveycountdataidentifyingpitfallsandsolutions