Literature DB >> 29802750

Occupancy modeling species-environment relationships with non-ignorable survey designs.

Kathryn M Irvine1, Thomas J Rodhouse2, Wilson J Wright1, Anthony R Olsen3.   

Abstract

Statistical models supporting inferences about species occurrence patterns in relation to environmental gradients are fundamental to ecology and conservation biology. A common implicit assumption is that the sampling design is ignorable and does not need to be formally accounted for in analyses. The analyst assumes data are representative of the desired population and statistical modeling proceeds. However, if data sets from probability and non-probability surveys are combined or unequal selection probabilities are used, the design may be non-ignorable. We outline the use of pseudo-maximum likelihood estimation for site-occupancy models to account for such non-ignorable survey designs. This estimation method accounts for the survey design by properly weighting the pseudo-likelihood equation. In our empirical example, legacy and newer randomly selected locations were surveyed for bats to bridge a historic statewide effort with an ongoing nationwide program. We provide a worked example using bat acoustic detection/non-detection data and show how analysts can diagnose whether their design is ignorable. Using simulations we assessed whether our approach is viable for modeling data sets composed of sites contributed outside of a probability design. Pseudo-maximum likelihood estimates differed from the usual maximum likelihood occupancy estimates for some bat species. Using simulations we show the maximum likelihood estimator of species-environment relationships with non-ignorable sampling designs was biased, whereas the pseudo-likelihood estimator was design unbiased. However, in our simulation study the designs composed of a large proportion of legacy or non-probability sites resulted in estimation issues for standard errors. These issues were likely a result of highly variable weights confounded by small sample sizes (5% or 10% sampling intensity and four revisits). Aggregating data sets from multiple sources logically supports larger sample sizes and potentially increases spatial extents for statistical inferences. Our results suggest that ignoring the mechanism for how locations were selected for data collection (e.g., the sampling design) could result in erroneous model-based conclusions. Therefore, in order to ensure robust and defensible recommendations for evidence-based conservation decision-making, the survey design information in addition to the data themselves must be available for analysts. Details for constructing the weights used in estimation and code for implementation are provided.
© 2018 by the Ecological Society of America.

Keywords:  bats; detection; informative sampling; master sample; occupancy; sampling bias; selection bias; survey sampling

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29802750      PMCID: PMC6457115          DOI: 10.1002/eap.1754

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


  8 in total

1.  Sampling of sparse species with probability proportional to prediction.

Authors:  Anna Ringvall; Nicholas Kruys
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.513

2.  Using GIS to generate spatially balanced random survey designs for natural resource applications.

Authors:  David M Theobald; Don L Stevens; Denis White; N Scott Urquhart; Anthony R Olsen; John B Norman
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2007-05-22       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  Adaptive monitoring: a new paradigm for long-term research and monitoring.

Authors:  David B Lindenmayer; Gene E Likens
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2009-05-04       Impact factor: 17.712

4.  Using 'found' data to augment a probability sample: Procedure and case study.

Authors:  J C Mc Overton; T C Young; W S Overton
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 2.513

5.  Combining and aggregating environmental data for status and trend assessments: challenges and approaches.

Authors:  Kathleen G Maas-Hebner; Michael J Harte; Nancy Molina; Robert M Hughes; Carl Schreck; J Alan Yeakley
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2015-04-21       Impact factor: 2.513

6.  Assessing the status and trend of bat populations across broad geographic regions with dynamic distribution models.

Authors:  Thomas J Rodhouse; Patricia C Ormsbee; Kathryn M Irvine; Lee A Vierling; Joseph M Szewczak; Kerri T Vierling
Journal:  Ecol Appl       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 4.657

7.  Multiple mortality events in bats: a global review.

Authors:  Thomas J O'Shea; Paul M Cryan; David T S Hayman; Raina K Plowright; Daniel G Streicker
Journal:  Mamm Rev       Date:  2016-01-18       Impact factor: 4.927

8.  A goodness-of-fit test for occupancy models with correlated within-season revisits.

Authors:  Wilson J Wright; Kathryn M Irvine; Thomas J Rodhouse
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2016-07-05       Impact factor: 2.912

  8 in total
  2 in total

1.  Evidence of region-wide bat population decline from long-term monitoring and Bayesian occupancy models with empirically informed priors.

Authors:  Thomas J Rodhouse; Rogelio M Rodriguez; Katharine M Banner; Patricia C Ormsbee; Jenny Barnett; Kathryn M Irvine
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2019-09-11       Impact factor: 2.912

2.  NABat: A top-down, bottom-up solution to collaborative continental-scale monitoring.

Authors:  Brian E Reichert; Mylea Bayless; Tina L Cheng; Jeremy T H Coleman; Charles M Francis; Winifred F Frick; Benjamin S Gotthold; Kathryn M Irvine; Cori Lausen; Han Li; Susan C Loeb; Jonathan D Reichard; Thomas J Rodhouse; Jordi L Segers; Jeremy L Siemers; Wayne E Thogmartin; Theodore J Weller
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2021-01-17       Impact factor: 5.129

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.