Caitlin Q. Ruhl, James W. Cain III, Fitsum Abadi, Jacob D. Hennig
{"title":"Estimating abundance of desert bighorn sheep with double-observer sightability modeling with residual heterogeneity","authors":"Caitlin Q. Ruhl, James W. Cain III, Fitsum Abadi, Jacob D. Hennig","doi":"10.1002/jwmg.70050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Accurate abundance estimates are critical for informed management of wildlife populations. In New Mexico, USA, minimum counts from aerial surveys are the primary basis for management decisions regarding desert bighorn sheep (<i>Ovis canadensis mexicana</i>); therefore, there is a need to assess methods that account for imperfect detection. Common survey methods for large mammals (i.e., sightability, double-observer, and double-observer sightability models) are known to result in biased estimates, but the presence of radio-collared individuals within a population allows for estimation of residual heterogeneity. Consequently, we explored the use of hybrid double-observer sightability approaches that account for residual heterogeneity when estimating abundance of desert bighorn sheep in the Fra Cristobal Mountains of New Mexico. We collected double-observer sightability data for 167 desert bighorn groups across 3 surveys between December 2016 and November 2017 and compared abundance estimates under 5 modeling methods: a standard sightability model (M<sub>S</sub>), a standard double-observer sightability model (M<sub>DS</sub>), a hybrid double-observer sightability model incorporating a recapture-type heterogeneity parameter (M<sub>R</sub>), a hybrid double-observer sightability model incorporating a mark-type heterogeneity parameter (M<sub>H</sub>), and a Lincoln-Petersen estimator. Across all model types, group behavior (moving vs. stationary) and group size influenced detection the most, followed by vegetation class, terrain type, and proportion of obscuring vegetation cover. Standard sightability models produced higher and less precise abundance estimates than all double-observer sightability models. Of the double-observer sightability models, M<sub>R</sub> was better supported and estimated greater abundance than M<sub>H</sub> and accounted for more bias than M<sub>DS</sub>. Both M<sub>R</sub> and M<sub>H</sub> yielded greater precision than M<sub>S</sub>. The M<sub>R</sub> models produced an average detection probability of <i>p</i> = 0.72 (SE = 0.02) and abundance estimates of <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n \n <mrow>\n <mover>\n <mi>N</mi>\n \n <mo>^</mo>\n </mover>\n </mrow>\n </mrow>\n </semantics></math> = 302 (95% CI = 262−385), <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n \n <mrow>\n <mover>\n <mi>N</mi>\n \n <mo>^</mo>\n </mover>\n </mrow>\n </mrow>\n </semantics></math> = 290 (95% CI = 261−340), and <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n \n <mrow>\n <mover>\n <mi>N</mi>\n \n <mo>^</mo>\n </mover>\n </mrow>\n </mrow>\n </semantics></math>= 352 (95% CI = 264−548) for the December 2016, May 2017, and November 2017 surveys, respectively. Lincoln-Petersen estimates of abundance were greater than all double-observer sightability models and similarly precise, but their usefulness is reduced given the requirement to permanently maintain a subset of animals with radio-collars combined with the inability to incorporate information from factors influencing detection probability. Further, because residual heterogeneity models better estimate visibility bias, are flexible in their accommodation of radio-collar data, and can be adapted to unique survey occasions, they present a viable and robust option for estimating desert bighorn sheep abundance.</p>","PeriodicalId":17504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Management","volume":"89 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Wildlife Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.70050","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Accurate abundance estimates are critical for informed management of wildlife populations. In New Mexico, USA, minimum counts from aerial surveys are the primary basis for management decisions regarding desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana); therefore, there is a need to assess methods that account for imperfect detection. Common survey methods for large mammals (i.e., sightability, double-observer, and double-observer sightability models) are known to result in biased estimates, but the presence of radio-collared individuals within a population allows for estimation of residual heterogeneity. Consequently, we explored the use of hybrid double-observer sightability approaches that account for residual heterogeneity when estimating abundance of desert bighorn sheep in the Fra Cristobal Mountains of New Mexico. We collected double-observer sightability data for 167 desert bighorn groups across 3 surveys between December 2016 and November 2017 and compared abundance estimates under 5 modeling methods: a standard sightability model (MS), a standard double-observer sightability model (MDS), a hybrid double-observer sightability model incorporating a recapture-type heterogeneity parameter (MR), a hybrid double-observer sightability model incorporating a mark-type heterogeneity parameter (MH), and a Lincoln-Petersen estimator. Across all model types, group behavior (moving vs. stationary) and group size influenced detection the most, followed by vegetation class, terrain type, and proportion of obscuring vegetation cover. Standard sightability models produced higher and less precise abundance estimates than all double-observer sightability models. Of the double-observer sightability models, MR was better supported and estimated greater abundance than MH and accounted for more bias than MDS. Both MR and MH yielded greater precision than MS. The MR models produced an average detection probability of p = 0.72 (SE = 0.02) and abundance estimates of = 302 (95% CI = 262−385), = 290 (95% CI = 261−340), and = 352 (95% CI = 264−548) for the December 2016, May 2017, and November 2017 surveys, respectively. Lincoln-Petersen estimates of abundance were greater than all double-observer sightability models and similarly precise, but their usefulness is reduced given the requirement to permanently maintain a subset of animals with radio-collars combined with the inability to incorporate information from factors influencing detection probability. Further, because residual heterogeneity models better estimate visibility bias, are flexible in their accommodation of radio-collar data, and can be adapted to unique survey occasions, they present a viable and robust option for estimating desert bighorn sheep abundance.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Wildlife Management publishes manuscripts containing information from original research that contributes to basic wildlife science. Suitable topics include investigations into the biology and ecology of wildlife and their habitats that has direct or indirect implications for wildlife management and conservation. This includes basic information on wildlife habitat use, reproduction, genetics, demographics, viability, predator-prey relationships, space-use, movements, behavior, and physiology; but within the context of contemporary management and conservation issues such that the knowledge may ultimately be useful to wildlife practitioners. Also considered are theoretical and conceptual aspects of wildlife science, including development of new approaches to quantitative analyses, modeling of wildlife populations and habitats, and other topics that are germane to advancing wildlife science. Limited reviews or meta analyses will be considered if they provide a meaningful new synthesis or perspective on an appropriate subject. Direct evaluation of management practices or policies should be sent to the Wildlife Society Bulletin, as should papers reporting new tools or techniques. However, papers that report new tools or techniques, or effects of management practices, within the context of a broader study investigating basic wildlife biology and ecology will be considered by The Journal of Wildlife Management. Book reviews of relevant topics in basic wildlife research and biology.