IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0159736.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences in Movement Pattern and Detectability between Males and Females Influence How Common Sampling Methods Estimate Sex Ratio

Author

Listed:
  • João Fabrício Mota Rodrigues
  • Marco Túlio Pacheco Coelho

Abstract

Sampling the biodiversity is an essential step for conservation, and understanding the efficiency of sampling methods allows us to estimate the quality of our biodiversity data. Sex ratio is an important population characteristic, but until now, no study has evaluated how efficient are the sampling methods commonly used in biodiversity surveys in estimating the sex ratio of populations. We used a virtual ecologist approach to investigate whether active and passive capture methods are able to accurately sample a population’s sex ratio and whether differences in movement pattern and detectability between males and females produce biased estimates of sex-ratios when using these methods. Our simulation allowed the recognition of individuals, similar to mark-recapture studies. We found that differences in both movement patterns and detectability between males and females produce biased estimates of sex ratios. However, increasing the sampling effort or the number of sampling days improves the ability of passive or active capture methods to properly sample sex ratio. Thus, prior knowledge regarding movement patterns and detectability for species is important information to guide field studies aiming to understand sex ratio related patterns.

Suggested Citation

  • João Fabrício Mota Rodrigues & Marco Túlio Pacheco Coelho, 2016. "Differences in Movement Pattern and Detectability between Males and Females Influence How Common Sampling Methods Estimate Sex Ratio," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-12, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0159736
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159736
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0159736
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0159736&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0159736?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:pone00:0159736. 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.