Literature DB >> 18488618

Multiple data sources improve DNA-based mark-recapture population estimates of grizzly bears.

John Boulanger1, Katherine C Kendall, Jeffrey B Stetz, David A Roon, Lisette P Waits, David Paetkau.   

Abstract

A fundamental challenge to estimating population size with mark-recapture methods is heterogeneous capture probabilities and subsequent bias of population estimates. Confronting this problem usually requires substantial sampling effort that can be difficult to achieve for some species, such as carnivores. We developed a methodology that uses two data sources to deal with heterogeneity and applied this to DNA mark-recapture data from grizzly bears (Ursus arctos). We improved population estimates by incorporating additional DNA "captures" of grizzly bears obtained by collecting hair from unbaited bear rub trees concurrently with baited, grid-based, hair snag sampling. We consider a Lincoln-Petersen estimator with hair snag captures as the initial session and rub tree captures as the recapture session and develop an estimator in program MARK that treats hair snag and rub tree samples as successive sessions. Using empirical data from a large-scale project in the greater Glacier National Park, Montana, USA, area and simulation modeling we evaluate these methods and compare the results to hair-snag-only estimates. Empirical results indicate that, compared with hair-snag-only data, the joint hair-snag-rub-tree methods produce similar but more precise estimates if capture and recapture rates are reasonably high for both methods. Simulation results suggest that estimators are potentially affected by correlation of capture probabilities between sample types in the presence of heterogeneity. Overall, closed population Huggins-Pledger estimators showed the highest precision and were most robust to sparse data, heterogeneity, and capture probability correlation among sampling types. Results also indicate that these estimators can be used when a segment of the population has zero capture probability for one of the methods. We propose that this general methodology may be useful for other species in which mark-recapture data are available from multiple sources.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18488618     DOI: 10.1890/06-1941.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecol Appl        ISSN: 1051-0761            Impact factor:   4.657


  13 in total

1.  Are most samples of animals systematically biased? Consistent individual trait differences bias samples despite random sampling.

Authors:  Peter A Biro
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2012-08-11       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Sampling designs matching species biology produce accurate and affordable abundance indices.

Authors:  Grant Harris; Sean Farley; Gareth J Russell; Matthew J Butler; Jeff Selinger
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2013-12-17       Impact factor: 2.984

Review 3.  Accounting for imperfect detection in ecology: a quantitative review.

Authors:  Kenneth F Kellner; Robert K Swihart
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-30       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Grizzly Bear Noninvasive Genetic Tagging Surveys: Estimating the Magnitude of Missed Detections.

Authors:  Jason T Fisher; Nicole Heim; Sandra Code; John Paczkowski
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-09-07       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Improving inference for aerial surveys of bears: The importance of assumptions and the cost of unnecessary complexity.

Authors:  Joshua H Schmidt; Tammy L Wilson; William L Thompson; Joel H Reynolds
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2017-05-25       Impact factor: 2.912

6.  Multisource noninvasive genetics of brown bears (Ursus arctos) in Greece reveals a highly structured population and a new matrilineal contact zone in southern Europe.

Authors:  Charilaos Pylidis; Peeter Anijalg; Urmas Saarma; Deborah A Dawson; Nikoleta Karaiskou; Roger Butlin; Yorgos Mertzanis; Alexios Giannakopoulos; Yorgos Iliopoulos; Andrew Krupa; Terence A Burke
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-05-02       Impact factor: 2.912

7.  Balancing precision and risk: should multiple detection methods be analyzed separately in N-mixture models?

Authors:  Tabitha A Graves; J Andrew Royle; Katherine C Kendall; Paul Beier; Jeffrey B Stetz; Amy C Macleod
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-12-12       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Estimating grizzly and black bear population abundance and trend in Banff National Park using noninvasive genetic sampling.

Authors:  Michael A Sawaya; Jeffrey B Stetz; Anthony P Clevenger; Michael L Gibeau; Steven T Kalinowski
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  A Comparison of Grizzly Bear Demographic Parameters Estimated from Non-Spatial and Spatial Open Population Capture-Recapture Models.

Authors:  Jesse Whittington; Michael A Sawaya
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-31       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Conflict bear translocation: investigating population genetics and fate of bear translocation in Dachigam National Park, Jammu and Kashmir, India.

Authors:  Lalit Kumar Sharma; Samina Amin Charoo; Sambandam Sathyakumar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-12       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.