IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jagbes/v26y2021i2d10.1007_s13253-021-00437-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Joint Modeling of Distances and Times in Point-Count Surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Adam Martin-Schwarze

    (University of Michigan)

  • Jarad Niemi

    (Iowa State University)

  • Philip Dixon

    (Iowa State University)

Abstract

Removal and distance modeling are two common methods to adjust counts for imperfect detection in point-count surveys. Several recent articles have formulated models to combine them into a distance-removal framework. We observe that these models fall into two groups building from different assumptions about the joint distribution of observed distances and first times to detection. One approach assumes the joint distribution results from a Poisson process (PP). The other assumes an independent joint (IJ) distribution with its joint density being the product of its marginal densities. We compose an IJ+PP model that more flexibly models the joint distribution and accommodates both existing approaches as special cases. The IJ+PP model matches the bias and coverage of the true model for data simulated from either PP or IJ models. In contrast, PP models underestimate abundance from IJ simulations, while IJ models overestimate abundance from PP simulations. We apply all three models to surveys of golden-crowned sparrows in Alaska. Only the IJ+PP model reasonably fits the joint distribution of observed distances and first times to detection. Model choice affects estimates of abundance and detection but has little impact on the magnitude of estimated covariate effects on availability and perceptibility. Supplementary materials accompanying this paper appear online.

Suggested Citation

  • Adam Martin-Schwarze & Jarad Niemi & Philip Dixon, 2021. "Joint Modeling of Distances and Times in Point-Count Surveys," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 26(2), pages 289-305, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jagbes:v:26:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s13253-021-00437-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s13253-021-00437-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13253-021-00437-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13253-021-00437-3?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shirley Pledger, 2000. "Unified Maximum Likelihood Estimates for Closed Capture–Recapture Models Using Mixtures," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 56(2), pages 434-442, June.
    2. David Louis Borchers & Martin James Cox, 2017. "Distance sampling detection functions: 2D or not 2D?," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 73(2), pages 593-602, June.
    3. D. L. Borchers & R. Langrock, 2015. "Double-observer line transect surveys with Markov-modulated Poisson process models for animal availability," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 71(4), pages 1060-1069, December.
    4. D. L. Borchers & W. Zucchini & M. P. Heide-Jørgensen & A. Cañadas & R. Langrock, 2013. "Using Hidden Markov Models to Deal with Availability Bias on Line Transect Surveys," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(3), pages 703-713, September.
    5. Richard J. Barker & Matthew R. Schofield & William A. Link & John R. Sauer, 2018. "On the reliability of N†mixture models for count data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 369-377, March.
    6. Robert M. Dorazio & J. Andrew Royle, 2003. "Mixture Models for Estimating the Size of a Closed Population When Capture Rates Vary among Individuals," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 59(2), pages 351-364, June.
    7. J. Andrew Royle, 2004. "N-Mixture Models for Estimating Population Size from Spatially Replicated Counts," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 60(1), pages 108-115, March.
    8. Adam Martin-Schwarze & Jarad Niemi & Philip Dixon, 2017. "Assessing the Impacts of Time-to-Detection Distribution Assumptions on Detection Probability Estimation," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 22(4), pages 465-480, December.
    9. Duarte, Adam & Adams, Michael J. & Peterson, James T., 2018. "Fitting N-mixture models to count data with unmodeled heterogeneity: Bias, diagnostics, and alternative approaches," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 374(C), pages 51-59.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Steen, Valerie A. & Duarte, Adam & Peterson, James T., 2023. "An evaluation of multistate occupancy models for estimating relative abundance and population trends," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 478(C).
    2. Chang Xuan Mao & Na You, 2009. "On Comparison of Mixture Models for Closed Population Capture–Recapture Studies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 65(2), pages 547-553, June.
    3. Hajo Holzmann & Axel Munk & Walter Zucchini, 2006. "On Identifiability in Capture–Recapture Models," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 62(3), pages 934-936, September.
    4. David L. Borchers & Peter Nightingale & Ben C. Stevenson & Rachel M. Fewster, 2022. "A latent capture history model for digital aerial surveys," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 78(1), pages 274-285, March.
    5. Jennifer B Smith & Bryan S Stevens & Dwayne R Etter & David M Williams, 2020. "Performance of spatial capture-recapture models with repurposed data: Assessing estimator robustness for retrospective applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-16, August.
    6. Louis-Paul Rivest & Sophie Baillargeon, 2007. "Applications and Extensions of Chao's Moment Estimator for the Size of a Closed Population," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 999-1006, December.
    7. J. Andrew Royle, 2006. "Site Occupancy Models with Heterogeneous Detection Probabilities," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 62(1), pages 97-102, March.
    8. Perry J. Williams & Cody Schroeder & Pat Jackson, 2020. "Estimating Reproduction and Survival of Unmarked Juveniles Using Aerial Images and Marked Adults," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 25(2), pages 133-147, June.
    9. Yuzi Zhang & Howard H. Chang & Qu Cheng & Philip A. Collender & Ting Li & Jinge He & Justin V. Remais, 2023. "A hierarchical model for analyzing multisite individual‐level disease surveillance data from multiple systems," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(2), pages 1507-1519, June.
    10. Francesco Bartolucci & Monia Lupparelli, 2008. "Focused Information Criterion for Capture–Recapture Models for Closed Populations," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 35(4), pages 629-649, December.
    11. B. J. T. Morgan & M. S. Ridout, 2008. "A new mixture model for capture heterogeneity," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 57(4), pages 433-446, September.
    12. William A. Link, 2003. "Nonidentifiability of Population Size from Capture-Recapture Data with Heterogeneous Detection Probabilities," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 59(4), pages 1123-1130, December.
    13. Riki Herliansyah & Ruth King & Stuart King, 2022. "Laplace Approximations for Capture–Recapture Models in the Presence of Individual Heterogeneity," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 27(3), pages 401-418, September.
    14. David Louis Borchers & Martin James Cox, 2017. "Distance sampling detection functions: 2D or not 2D?," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 73(2), pages 593-602, June.
    15. Thandrayen, Joanne & Wang, Yan, 2009. "A latent variable regression model for capture-recapture data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 53(7), pages 2740-2746, May.
    16. Jakub Stoklosa & Wen-Han Hwang & Sheng-Hai Wu & Richard Huggins, 2011. "Heterogeneous Capture–Recapture Models with Covariates: A Partial Likelihood Approach for Closed Populations," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(4), pages 1659-1665, December.
    17. Fodé Tounkara & Louis‐Paul Rivest, 2015. "Mixture regression models for closed population capture–recapture data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 71(3), pages 721-730, September.
    18. Whitlock, Steven L. & Womble, Jamie N. & Peterson, James T., 2020. "Modelling pinniped abundance and distribution by combining counts at terrestrial sites and in-water sightings," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 420(C).
    19. Richard Arnold & Yu Hayakawa & Paul Yip, 2010. "Capture–Recapture Estimation Using Finite Mixtures of Arbitrary Dimension," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(2), pages 644-655, June.
    20. D. L. Borchers & M. G. Efford, 2008. "Spatially Explicit Maximum Likelihood Methods for Capture–Recapture Studies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 64(2), pages 377-385, June.

    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:spr:jagbes:v:26:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s13253-021-00437-3. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.