How do ecologists estimate occupancy in practice?

IF 5.4 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Ecography Pub Date : 2024-12-03 DOI:10.1111/ecog.07402
Benjamin R. Goldstein, Abigail G. Keller, Kendall L. Calhoun, Kristin J. Barker, Felipe Montealegre-Mora, Mitchell W. Serota, Amy Van Scoyoc, Phoebe Parker-Shames, Chelsea L. Andreozzi, Perry de Valpine
{"title":"How do ecologists estimate occupancy in practice?","authors":"Benjamin R. Goldstein, Abigail G. Keller, Kendall L. Calhoun, Kristin J. Barker, Felipe Montealegre-Mora, Mitchell W. Serota, Amy Van Scoyoc, Phoebe Parker-Shames, Chelsea L. Andreozzi, Perry de Valpine","doi":"10.1111/ecog.07402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over 20 years ago, ecologists were introduced to the site occupancy model (SOM) for estimating occupancy rates from detection-nondetection data. In the ensuing decades, the SOM and its hierarchical modeling extensions have become mainstays of quantitative ecology, and estimating occupancy rates has become one of the most common applications of ecological field data. Here, we review 364 peer-reviewed articles published between 2019–2021 that estimated occupancy. We first document broad patterns in study design and statistical methods to provide educators, developers of methodology and software, and ecologists with a clear picture of the landscape of methodologies used to estimate animal occupancy. Second, we conduct a focused review of a subset of 98 papers that applied the hierarchical SOM, drawing from methodological literature to identify discrepancies between SOM applications and methodological best practices. We discuss limits to statistical power, issues with model checking and model selection procedures, potential problems arising from unmodeled non-independence, and reproducibility. We highlight areas of rapid advancement in interpreting animal occupancy related to animal movement, imperfect detection, and the occupancy–density relationship. We aim to help readers understand the landscape of methods available, motivate shifts toward robust and reproducible science, and inspire new software and methodological research.","PeriodicalId":51026,"journal":{"name":"Ecography","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.07402","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Over 20 years ago, ecologists were introduced to the site occupancy model (SOM) for estimating occupancy rates from detection-nondetection data. In the ensuing decades, the SOM and its hierarchical modeling extensions have become mainstays of quantitative ecology, and estimating occupancy rates has become one of the most common applications of ecological field data. Here, we review 364 peer-reviewed articles published between 2019–2021 that estimated occupancy. We first document broad patterns in study design and statistical methods to provide educators, developers of methodology and software, and ecologists with a clear picture of the landscape of methodologies used to estimate animal occupancy. Second, we conduct a focused review of a subset of 98 papers that applied the hierarchical SOM, drawing from methodological literature to identify discrepancies between SOM applications and methodological best practices. We discuss limits to statistical power, issues with model checking and model selection procedures, potential problems arising from unmodeled non-independence, and reproducibility. We highlight areas of rapid advancement in interpreting animal occupancy related to animal movement, imperfect detection, and the occupancy–density relationship. We aim to help readers understand the landscape of methods available, motivate shifts toward robust and reproducible science, and inspire new software and methodological research.
生态学家在实践中如何估计占用率?
20多年前,生态学家被引入了场地占用模型(SOM),用于从检测-非检测数据估计占用率。在随后的几十年里,SOM及其分层模型扩展已成为定量生态学的支柱,估算占用率已成为生态野外数据最常见的应用之一。在这里,我们回顾了2019年至2021年间发表的364篇同行评议的文章,这些文章估计了入住率。我们首先记录了研究设计和统计方法的广泛模式,为教育工作者、方法论和软件开发人员以及生态学家提供了用于估计动物占用率的方法的清晰图景。其次,我们对应用分层SOM的98篇论文进行了重点审查,从方法学文献中找出SOM应用与方法学最佳实践之间的差异。我们讨论了统计能力的限制,模型检查和模型选择程序的问题,未建模的非独立性和可重复性引起的潜在问题。我们强调了在解释与动物运动、不完善的检测和占用-密度关系相关的动物占用方面取得快速进展的领域。我们的目标是帮助读者了解可用方法的前景,激励向稳健和可再生科学的转变,并激发新的软件和方法研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ecography
Ecography 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
122
审稿时长
8-16 weeks
期刊介绍: ECOGRAPHY publishes exciting, novel, and important articles that significantly advance understanding of ecological or biodiversity patterns in space or time. Papers focusing on conservation or restoration are welcomed, provided they are anchored in ecological theory and convey a general message that goes beyond a single case study. We encourage papers that seek advancing the field through the development and testing of theory or methodology, or by proposing new tools for analysis or interpretation of ecological phenomena. Manuscripts are expected to address general principles in ecology, though they may do so using a specific model system if they adequately frame the problem relative to a generalized ecological question or problem. Purely descriptive papers are considered only if breaking new ground and/or describing patterns seldom explored. Studies focused on a single species or single location are generally discouraged unless they make a significant contribution to advancing general theory or understanding of biodiversity patterns and processes. Manuscripts merely confirming or marginally extending results of previous work are unlikely to be considered in Ecography. Papers are judged by virtue of their originality, appeal to general interest, and their contribution to new developments in studies of spatial and temporal ecological patterns. There are no biases with regard to taxon, biome, or biogeographical area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信