Reliability of different mark-recapture methods for population size estimation tested against reference population sizes constructed from field data.

Reliable estimates of population size are fundamental in many ecological studies and biodiversity conservation. Selecting appropriate methods to estimate abundance is often very difficult, especially if data are scarce. Most studies concerning the reliability of different estimators used simulation...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Annegret Grimm, Bernd Gruber, Klaus Henle
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2014
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/00bb640db31141d4b372f9c539c1c99f
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:00bb640db31141d4b372f9c539c1c99f
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:00bb640db31141d4b372f9c539c1c99f2021-11-18T08:17:14ZReliability of different mark-recapture methods for population size estimation tested against reference population sizes constructed from field data.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0098840https://doaj.org/article/00bb640db31141d4b372f9c539c1c99f2014-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/24896260/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203Reliable estimates of population size are fundamental in many ecological studies and biodiversity conservation. Selecting appropriate methods to estimate abundance is often very difficult, especially if data are scarce. Most studies concerning the reliability of different estimators used simulation data based on assumptions about capture variability that do not necessarily reflect conditions in natural populations. Here, we used data from an intensively studied closed population of the arboreal gecko Gehyra variegata to construct reference population sizes for assessing twelve different population size estimators in terms of bias, precision, accuracy, and their 95%-confidence intervals. Two of the reference populations reflect natural biological entities, whereas the other reference populations reflect artificial subsets of the population. Since individual heterogeneity was assumed, we tested modifications of the Lincoln-Petersen estimator, a set of models in programs MARK and CARE-2, and a truncated geometric distribution. Ranking of methods was similar across criteria. Models accounting for individual heterogeneity performed best in all assessment criteria. For populations from heterogeneous habitats without obvious covariates explaining individual heterogeneity, we recommend using the moment estimator or the interpolated jackknife estimator (both implemented in CAPTURE/MARK). If data for capture frequencies are substantial, we recommend the sample coverage or the estimating equation (both models implemented in CARE-2). Depending on the distribution of catchabilities, our proposed multiple Lincoln-Petersen and a truncated geometric distribution obtained comparably good results. The former usually resulted in a minimum population size and the latter can be recommended when there is a long tail of low capture probabilities. Models with covariates and mixture models performed poorly. Our approach identified suitable methods and extended options to evaluate the performance of mark-recapture population size estimators under field conditions, which is essential for selecting an appropriate method and obtaining reliable results in ecology and conservation biology, and thus for sound management.Annegret GrimmBernd GruberKlaus HenlePublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 9, Iss 6, p e98840 (2014)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Annegret Grimm Bernd Gruber Klaus Henle Reliability of different mark-recapture methods for population size estimation tested against reference population sizes constructed from field data.
description	Reliable estimates of population size are fundamental in many ecological studies and biodiversity conservation. Selecting appropriate methods to estimate abundance is often very difficult, especially if data are scarce. Most studies concerning the reliability of different estimators used simulation data based on assumptions about capture variability that do not necessarily reflect conditions in natural populations. Here, we used data from an intensively studied closed population of the arboreal gecko Gehyra variegata to construct reference population sizes for assessing twelve different population size estimators in terms of bias, precision, accuracy, and their 95%-confidence intervals. Two of the reference populations reflect natural biological entities, whereas the other reference populations reflect artificial subsets of the population. Since individual heterogeneity was assumed, we tested modifications of the Lincoln-Petersen estimator, a set of models in programs MARK and CARE-2, and a truncated geometric distribution. Ranking of methods was similar across criteria. Models accounting for individual heterogeneity performed best in all assessment criteria. For populations from heterogeneous habitats without obvious covariates explaining individual heterogeneity, we recommend using the moment estimator or the interpolated jackknife estimator (both implemented in CAPTURE/MARK). If data for capture frequencies are substantial, we recommend the sample coverage or the estimating equation (both models implemented in CARE-2). Depending on the distribution of catchabilities, our proposed multiple Lincoln-Petersen and a truncated geometric distribution obtained comparably good results. The former usually resulted in a minimum population size and the latter can be recommended when there is a long tail of low capture probabilities. Models with covariates and mixture models performed poorly. Our approach identified suitable methods and extended options to evaluate the performance of mark-recapture population size estimators under field conditions, which is essential for selecting an appropriate method and obtaining reliable results in ecology and conservation biology, and thus for sound management.
format	article
author	Annegret Grimm Bernd Gruber Klaus Henle
author_facet	Annegret Grimm Bernd Gruber Klaus Henle
author_sort	Annegret Grimm
title	Reliability of different mark-recapture methods for population size estimation tested against reference population sizes constructed from field data.
title_short	Reliability of different mark-recapture methods for population size estimation tested against reference population sizes constructed from field data.
title_full	Reliability of different mark-recapture methods for population size estimation tested against reference population sizes constructed from field data.
title_fullStr	Reliability of different mark-recapture methods for population size estimation tested against reference population sizes constructed from field data.
title_full_unstemmed	Reliability of different mark-recapture methods for population size estimation tested against reference population sizes constructed from field data.
title_sort	reliability of different mark-recapture methods for population size estimation tested against reference population sizes constructed from field data.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2014
url	https://doaj.org/article/00bb640db31141d4b372f9c539c1c99f
work_keys_str_mv	AT annegretgrimm reliabilityofdifferentmarkrecapturemethodsforpopulationsizeestimationtestedagainstreferencepopulationsizesconstructedfromfielddata AT berndgruber reliabilityofdifferentmarkrecapturemethodsforpopulationsizeestimationtestedagainstreferencepopulationsizesconstructedfromfielddata AT klaushenle reliabilityofdifferentmarkrecapturemethodsforpopulationsizeestimationtestedagainstreferencepopulationsizesconstructedfromfielddata
_version_	1718421962290626560

Reliability of different mark-recapture methods for population size estimation tested against reference population sizes constructed from field data.

Ejemplares similares