IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0098840.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reliability of Different Mark-Recapture Methods for Population Size Estimation Tested against Reference Population Sizes Constructed from Field Data

Author

Listed:
  • Annegret Grimm
  • Bernd Gruber
  • Klaus Henle

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Annegret Grimm & Bernd Gruber & Klaus Henle, 2014. "Reliability of Different Mark-Recapture Methods for Population Size Estimation Tested against Reference Population Sizes Constructed from Field Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-11, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0098840
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098840
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0098840
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0098840&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0098840?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0098840. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.