Literature DB >> 24400512

Accommodating species identification errors in transect surveys.

Paul B Conn1, Brett T McClintock2, Michael F Cameron2, Devin S Johnson2, Erin E Moreland2, Peter L Boveng2.   

Abstract

Ecologists often use transect surveys to estimate the density and abundance of animal populations. Errors in species classification are often evident in such surveys, yet few statistical methods exist to properly account for them. In this paper, we examine biases that result from species misidentification when ignored, and we develop statistical models to provide unbiased estimates of density in the face of such errors. Our approach treats true species identity as a latent variable and requires auxiliary information on the misclassification process (such as informative priors, experiments using known species, or a double-observer protocol). We illustrate our approach with simulated census data and with double-observer survey data for ice-associated seals in the Bering Sea. For the seal analysis, we integrated misclassification into a model-based framework for distance-sampling data. The simulated data analysis demonstrated reliable estimation of animal density when there are experimental data to inform misclassification rates; double-observer protocols provided robust inference when there were "unknown" species observations but no outright misclassification, or when misclassification probabilities were symmetric and a symmetry constraint was imposed during estimation. Under our modeling framework, we obtained reasonable apparent densities of seal species even under considerable imprecision in species identification. We obtained more reliable inferences when modeling variation in density among transects. We argue that ecologists should often use spatially explicit models to account for differences in species distributions when trying to account for species misidentification. Our results support using double-observer sampling protocols that guard against species misclassification (i.e., by recording uncertain observations as "unknown").

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24400512     DOI: 10.1890/12-2124.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecology        ISSN: 0012-9658            Impact factor:   5.499


  7 in total

1.  Multiple genetic lineages challenge the monospecific status of the West African endemic frog family Odontobatrachidae.

Authors:  Michael F Barej; Johannes Penner; Andreas Schmitz; Mark-Oliver Rödel
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2015-04-19       Impact factor: 3.260

2.  The spatial distribution of Mustelidae in France.

Authors:  Clément Calenge; Joël Chadoeuf; Christophe Giraud; Sylvie Huet; Romain Julliard; Pascal Monestiez; Jérémy Piffady; David Pinaud; Sandrine Ruette
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-26       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Scale and Sampling Effects on Floristic Quality.

Authors:  Greg Spyreas
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-04       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Characterisation of false-positive observations in botanical surveys.

Authors:  Quentin J Groom; Sarah J Whild
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 2.984

5.  Deep learning increases the availability of organism photographs taken by citizens in citizen science programs.

Authors:  Yukari Suzuki-Ohno; Thomas Westfechtel; Jun Yokoyama; Kazunori Ohno; Tohru Nakashizuka; Masakado Kawata; Takayuki Okatani
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-01-24       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 6.  Errors in aerial survey count data: Identifying pitfalls and solutions.

Authors:  Kayla L Davis; Emily D Silverman; Allison L Sussman; R Randy Wilson; Elise F Zipkin
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 2.912

7.  Estimating uncertainty in density surface models.

Authors:  David L Miller; Elizabeth A Becker; Karin A Forney; Jason J Roberts; Ana Cañadas; Robert S Schick
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2022-08-23       Impact factor: 3.061

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.