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.
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.