Literature DB >> 29702727

On the robustness of N-mixture models.

William A Link1, Matthew R Schofield2, Richard J Barker2, John R Sauer1.   

Abstract

N-mixture models provide an appealing alternative to mark-recapture models, in that they allow for estimation of detection probability and population size from count data, without requiring that individual animals be identified. There is, however, a cost to using the N-mixture models: inference is very sensitive to the model's assumptions. We consider the effects of three violations of assumptions that might reasonably be expected in practice: double counting, unmodeled variation in population size over time, and unmodeled variation in detection probability over time. These three examples show that small violations of assumptions can lead to large biases in estimation. The violations of assumptions we consider are not only small qualitatively, but are also small in the sense that they are unlikely to be detected using goodness-of-fit tests. In cases where reliable estimates of population size are needed, we encourage investigators to allocate resources to acquiring additional data, such as recaptures of marked individuals, for estimation of detection probabilities.
© 2018 by the Ecological Society of America.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bayesian P-value; N-mixture model; abundance estimation; count data; detection probability; robustness

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29702727     DOI: 10.1002/ecy.2362

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


  10 in total

1.  Sharing detection heterogeneity information among species in community models of occupancy and abundance can strengthen inference.

Authors:  Thomas V Riecke; Dan Gibson; Marc Kéry; Michael Schaub
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-12-07       Impact factor: 2.912

2.  Comparing N-mixture models and GLMMs for relative abundance estimation in a citizen science dataset.

Authors:  Benjamin R Goldstein; Perry de Valpine
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-07-19       Impact factor: 4.996

3.  On the robustness of latent class models for diagnostic testing with no gold standard.

Authors:  Matthew R Schofield; Michael J Maze; John A Crump; Matthew P Rubach; Renee Galloway; Katrina J Sharples
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2021-05-14       Impact factor: 2.497

4.  N-mixture models reliably estimate the abundance of small vertebrates.

Authors:  Gentile Francesco Ficetola; Benedetta Barzaghi; Andrea Melotto; Martina Muraro; Enrico Lunghi; Claudia Canedoli; Elia Lo Parrino; Veronica Nanni; Iolanda Silva-Rocha; Arianna Urso; Miguel Angel Carretero; Daniele Salvi; Stefano Scali; Giorgio Scarì; Roberta Pennati; Franco Andreone; Raoul Manenti
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-07-09       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Counting Cats: The integration of expert and citizen science data for unbiased inference of population abundance.

Authors:  Jenni L McDonald; Dave Hodgson
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-04-02       Impact factor: 2.912

6.  Space-for-time is not necessarily a substitution when monitoring the distribution of pelagic fishes in the San Francisco Bay-Delta.

Authors:  Adam Duarte; James T Peterson
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-11-16       Impact factor: 2.912

Review 7.  Estimating the movements of terrestrial animal populations using broad-scale occurrence data.

Authors:  Sarah R Supp; Gil Bohrer; John Fieberg; Frank A La Sorte
Journal:  Mov Ecol       Date:  2021-12-11       Impact factor: 3.600

8.  Open removal models with temporary emigration and population dynamics to inform invasive animal management.

Authors:  Bradley Udell; Julien Martin; Christina Romagosa; Hardin Waddle; Fred Johnson; Bryan Falk; Amy Yackel Adams; Sarah Funck; Jennifer Ketterlin; Eric Suarez; Frank Mazzotti
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-08-17       Impact factor: 3.167

9.  Simple statistical models can be sufficient for testing hypotheses with population time-series data.

Authors:  Seth J Wenger; Edward S Stowe; Keith B Gido; Mary C Freeman; Yoichiro Kanno; Nathan R Franssen; Julian D Olden; N LeRoy Poff; Annika W Walters; Phillip M Bumpers; Meryl C Mims; Mevin B Hooten; Xinyi Lu
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-09-27       Impact factor: 3.167

10.  Accounting for detection probability with overestimation by integrating double monitoring programs over 40 years.

Authors:  David Vallecillo; Matthieu Guillemain; Matthieu Authier; Colin Bouchard; Damien Cohez; Emmanuel Vialet; Grégoire Massez; Philippe Vandewalle; Jocelyn Champagnon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-03-25       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.