Distance sampling surveys: using components of detection and total error to select among approaches

IF 4.3 1区 生物学 Q1 ECOLOGY Wildlife Monographs Pub Date : 2022-06-17 DOI:10.1002/wmon.1070
Joshua H. Schmidt, William L. Thompson, Tammy L. Wilson, Joel H. Reynolds
{"title":"Distance sampling surveys: using components of detection and total error to select among approaches","authors":"Joshua H. Schmidt,&nbsp;William L. Thompson,&nbsp;Tammy L. Wilson,&nbsp;Joel H. Reynolds","doi":"10.1002/wmon.1070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Wildlife population estimators often require formal adjustment for imperfect detection of individuals during surveys. Conventional distance sampling (CDS) and its extensions (mark-recapture distance sampling [MRDS], temporary emigration distance sampling [TEDS]) are popular approaches for producing unbiased estimators of wildlife abundance. However, despite extensive discussion and development of distance sampling theory in the literature, deciding which of these alternatives is most appropriate for a particular scenario can be confusing. Some of this confusion may stem from an incomplete understanding of how each approach addresses the components of the detection process. Here we describe the proper application of CDS, MRDS, and TEDS approaches and use applied examples to help clarify their differing assumptions with respect to the components of the detection process. To further aid the practitioner, we summarize the differences in a decision tree that can be used to identify cases where a more complex alternative (e.g., MRDS or TEDS) may be appropriate for a given survey application. Although the more complex approaches can account for additional sources of bias, in practical applications one also must consider estimator precision. Therefore, we also review the concept of total estimator error in the context of comparing competing methods for a given application to aid in the selection of the most appropriate distance sampling approach. Finally, we detail how the use of more advanced techniques (i.e., informed priors, open-population distance sampling models, and integrated modeling approaches) can further reduce total estimator error by leveraging information from existing and ongoing data collection. By synthesizing the existing literature on CDS, MRDS, TEDS and their extensions, in conjunction with the concepts of total estimator error and the components of the detection process, we provide a comprehensive guide that can be used by the practitioner to more efficiently, effectively, and appropriately apply distance sampling in a variety of settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":235,"journal":{"name":"Wildlife Monographs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wildlife Monographs","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wmon.1070","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Wildlife population estimators often require formal adjustment for imperfect detection of individuals during surveys. Conventional distance sampling (CDS) and its extensions (mark-recapture distance sampling [MRDS], temporary emigration distance sampling [TEDS]) are popular approaches for producing unbiased estimators of wildlife abundance. However, despite extensive discussion and development of distance sampling theory in the literature, deciding which of these alternatives is most appropriate for a particular scenario can be confusing. Some of this confusion may stem from an incomplete understanding of how each approach addresses the components of the detection process. Here we describe the proper application of CDS, MRDS, and TEDS approaches and use applied examples to help clarify their differing assumptions with respect to the components of the detection process. To further aid the practitioner, we summarize the differences in a decision tree that can be used to identify cases where a more complex alternative (e.g., MRDS or TEDS) may be appropriate for a given survey application. Although the more complex approaches can account for additional sources of bias, in practical applications one also must consider estimator precision. Therefore, we also review the concept of total estimator error in the context of comparing competing methods for a given application to aid in the selection of the most appropriate distance sampling approach. Finally, we detail how the use of more advanced techniques (i.e., informed priors, open-population distance sampling models, and integrated modeling approaches) can further reduce total estimator error by leveraging information from existing and ongoing data collection. By synthesizing the existing literature on CDS, MRDS, TEDS and their extensions, in conjunction with the concepts of total estimator error and the components of the detection process, we provide a comprehensive guide that can be used by the practitioner to more efficiently, effectively, and appropriately apply distance sampling in a variety of settings.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
距离抽样调查:使用检测分量和总误差来选择方法
在调查期间,野生动物种群估计经常需要对个体的不完美检测进行正式调整。传统的距离抽样(CDS)及其扩展(标记-再捕获距离抽样[MRDS]、临时迁移距离抽样[TEDS])是产生无偏野生动物丰度估计值的常用方法。然而,尽管文献中对距离抽样理论进行了广泛的讨论和发展,但决定这些替代方案中哪一种最适合特定场景可能令人困惑。其中一些混乱可能源于对每种方法如何处理检测过程的组成部分的不完全理解。在这里,我们描述了CDS、MRDS和TEDS方法的正确应用,并使用应用示例来帮助澄清它们关于检测过程组成部分的不同假设。为了进一步帮助从业者,我们总结了决策树中的差异,该决策树可用于识别更复杂的替代方案(例如,MRDS或TEDS)可能适合给定调查应用程序的情况。虽然更复杂的方法可以解释额外的偏差来源,但在实际应用中还必须考虑估计器精度。因此,我们还在比较给定应用的竞争方法的背景下回顾了总估计器误差的概念,以帮助选择最合适的距离采样方法。最后,我们详细介绍了如何使用更先进的技术(即,知情先验,开放种群距离抽样模型和集成建模方法)通过利用现有和正在进行的数据收集的信息进一步减少总估计误差。通过综合CDS、MRDS、TEDS及其扩展的现有文献,结合总估计器误差和检测过程的组成部分的概念,我们提供了一个全面的指南,可以被从业者更有效地使用,有效地,并适当地在各种环境中应用距离采样。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Wildlife Monographs
Wildlife Monographs 生物-动物学
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Wildlife Monographs supplements The Journal of Wildlife Management with focused investigations in the area of the management and conservation of wildlife. Abstracting and Indexing Information Academic Search Alumni Edition (EBSCO Publishing) Agricultural & Environmental Science Database (ProQuest) Biological Science Database (ProQuest) CAB Abstracts® (CABI) Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database (ProQuest) Global Health (CABI) Grasslands & Forage Abstracts (CABI) Helminthological Abstracts (CABI) Natural Science Collection (ProQuest) Poultry Abstracts (CABI) ProQuest Central (ProQuest) ProQuest Central K-543 Research Library (ProQuest) Research Library Prep (ProQuest) SciTech Premium Collection (ProQuest) Soils & Fertilizers Abstracts (CABI) Veterinary Bulletin (CABI)
期刊最新文献
Issue Information - Cover Associations between a feral equid and the Sonoran Desert ecosystem Asociaciones Entre un Equino Salvaje y el Ecosistema del Desierto Sonorense Issue Information - Cover Less is more: vegetation changes coincide with white-tailed deer suppression over thirty years Issue Information - Cover
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1