利用残差异质性的双观察者能见度模型估算荒漠大角羊的丰度

IF 1.9 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ECOLOGY
Caitlin Q. Ruhl, James W. Cain III, Fitsum Abadi, Jacob D. Hennig
{"title":"利用残差异质性的双观察者能见度模型估算荒漠大角羊的丰度","authors":"Caitlin Q. Ruhl,&nbsp;James W. Cain III,&nbsp;Fitsum Abadi,&nbsp;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":"{\"title\":\"Estimating abundance of desert bighorn sheep with double-observer sightability modeling with residual heterogeneity\",\"authors\":\"Caitlin Q. Ruhl,&nbsp;James W. Cain III,&nbsp;Fitsum Abadi,&nbsp;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}","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

摘要

准确的丰度估计对于野生动物种群的知情管理至关重要。在美国新墨西哥州,航空调查的最低数量是沙漠大角羊管理决策的主要依据;因此,有必要评估检测不完善的方法。已知大型哺乳动物的常见调查方法(即可视性、双观察者和双观察者可视性模型)会导致有偏差的估计,但在种群中存在无线电项圈的个体允许估计剩余异质性。因此,在估计新墨西哥州Fra Cristobal山脉沙漠大角羊的丰度时,我们探索了使用混合双观察者可视性方法来解释剩余异质性的方法。我们在2016年12月至2017年11月的3次调查中收集了167个沙漠大角兽群体的双观察者能见度数据,并比较了5种建模方法下的丰度估算:标准能见度模型(MS)、标准双观察者能见度模型(MDS)、包含重现型异质性参数(MR)的混合双观察者能见度模型、包含标记型异质性参数(MH)的混合双观察者能见度模型和林肯-彼得森估计器。在所有模型类型中,群体行为(移动与静止)和群体大小对检测的影响最大,其次是植被类别、地形类型和遮挡植被覆盖的比例。与所有双观察者可见性模型相比,标准可见性模型产生的丰度估计更高,但精度更低。在双观察者能见度模型中,MR得到了更好的支持,估计的丰度比MH高,比MDS的偏差更大。MR和MH的精确度都高于ms。MR模型产生的平均检测概率为p = 0.72 (SE = 0.02),丰度估计为N ^ = 302 (95% CI = 262 - 385)。N ^ = 290 (95% ci = 261−340);在2016年12月、2017年5月和2017年11月的调查中,N ^ = 352 (95% CI = 264−548)。Lincoln-Petersen对丰度的估计比所有双观察者可视性模型都要高,而且同样精确,但是考虑到需要永久地维持一个带有无线电项圈的动物子集,以及无法纳入影响探测概率的因素的信息,它们的实用性降低了。此外,由于剩余异质性模型可以更好地估计能见度偏差,在适应无线电项圈数据方面具有灵活性,并且可以适应独特的调查场合,因此它们为估计沙漠大角羊的丰度提供了一个可行且可靠的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Estimating abundance of desert bighorn sheep with double-observer sightability modeling with residual heterogeneity

Estimating abundance of desert bighorn sheep with double-observer sightability modeling with residual heterogeneity

Estimating abundance of desert bighorn sheep with double-observer sightability modeling with residual heterogeneity

Estimating abundance of desert bighorn sheep with double-observer sightability modeling with residual heterogeneity

Estimating abundance of desert bighorn sheep with double-observer sightability modeling with residual heterogeneity

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 N ^  = 302 (95% CI = 262−385), N ^  = 290 (95% CI = 261−340), and N ^ = 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Wildlife Management
Journal of Wildlife Management 环境科学-动物学
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
13.00%
发文量
188
审稿时长
9-24 weeks
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.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信