IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0173609.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of social organization, trap arrangement and density, sampling scale, and population density on bias in population size estimation using some common mark-recapture estimators

Author

Listed:
  • Manan Gupta
  • Amitabh Joshi
  • T N C Vidya

Abstract

Mark-recapture estimators are commonly used for population size estimation, and typically yield unbiased estimates for most solitary species with low to moderate home range sizes. However, these methods assume independence of captures among individuals, an assumption that is clearly violated in social species that show fission-fusion dynamics, such as the Asian elephant. In the specific case of Asian elephants, doubts have been raised about the accuracy of population size estimates. More importantly, the potential problem for the use of mark-recapture methods posed by social organization in general has not been systematically addressed. We developed an individual-based simulation framework to systematically examine the potential effects of type of social organization, as well as other factors such as trap density and arrangement, spatial scale of sampling, and population density, on bias in population sizes estimated by POPAN, Robust Design, and Robust Design with detection heterogeneity. In the present study, we ran simulations with biological, demographic and ecological parameters relevant to Asian elephant populations, but the simulation framework is easily extended to address questions relevant to other social species. We collected capture history data from the simulations, and used those data to test for bias in population size estimation. Social organization significantly affected bias in most analyses, but the effect sizes were variable, depending on other factors. Social organization tended to introduce large bias when trap arrangement was uniform and sampling effort was low. POPAN clearly outperformed the two Robust Design models we tested, yielding close to zero bias if traps were arranged at random in the study area, and when population density and trap density were not too low. Social organization did not have a major effect on bias for these parameter combinations at which POPAN gave more or less unbiased population size estimates. Therefore, the effect of social organization on bias in population estimation could be removed by using POPAN with specific parameter combinations, to obtain population size estimates in a social species.

Suggested Citation

  • Manan Gupta & Amitabh Joshi & T N C Vidya, 2017. "Effects of social organization, trap arrangement and density, sampling scale, and population density on bias in population size estimation using some common mark-recapture estimators," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0173609
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173609
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0173609
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0173609&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0173609?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rees, Samuel G. & Goodenough, Anne E. & Hart, Adam G. & Stafford, Richard, 2011. "Testing the effectiveness of capture mark recapture population estimation techniques using a computer simulation with known population size," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(17), pages 3291-3294.
    2. 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.
    3. Peter Guttorp & Walter W. Piegorsch & B. J. Reich & B. Gardner, 2014. "A spatial capture‐recapture model for territorial species," Environmetrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(8), pages 630-637, December.
    4. Holly C Smith & Ken Pollock & Kelly Waples & Stuart Bradley & Lars Bejder, 2013. "Use of the Robust Design to Estimate Seasonal Abundance and Demographic Parameters of a Coastal Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops aduncus) Population," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-10, October.
    5. Nina Luisa Santostasi & Silvia Bonizzoni & Giovanni Bearzi & Lavinia Eddy & Olivier Gimenez, 2016. "A Robust Design Capture-Recapture Analysis of Abundance, Survival and Temporary Emigration of Three Odontocete Species in the Gulf of Corinth, Greece," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-21, December.
    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. Paul S. F. Yip & Hua-Zhen Lin & Liqun Xi, 2005. "A Semiparametric Method for Estimating Population Size for Capture–Recapture Experiments with Random Covariates in Continuous Time," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 61(4), pages 1085-1092, December.
    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. Ben C. Stevenson & Rachel M. Fewster & Koustubh Sharma, 2022. "Spatial correlation structures for detections of individuals in spatial capture–recapture models," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 78(3), pages 963-973, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Fernández, D. & Arnold, R. & Pledger, S., 2016. "Mixture-based clustering for the ordered stereotype model," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 46-75.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Richard Huggins & Wen‐Han Hwang, 2007. "Non‐parametric estimation of population size from capture–recapture data when the capture probability depends on a covariate," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 56(4), pages 429-443, August.
    9. J. Andrew Royle, 2006. "Site Occupancy Models with Heterogeneous Detection Probabilities," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 62(1), pages 97-102, March.
    10. Murray G. Efford & Christine M. Hunter, 2018. "Spatial capture–mark–resight estimation of animal population density," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(2), pages 411-420, June.
    11. George Seber & Carl Schwarz, 2002. "Capture-recapture: Before and after EURING 2000," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(1-4), pages 5-18.
    12. Stoklosa, Jakub & Huggins, Richard M., 2012. "A robust P-spline approach to closed population capture–recapture models with time dependence and heterogeneity," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 408-417.
    13. Simone Tenan & Paolo Pedrini & Natalia Bragalanti & Claudio Groff & Chris Sutherland, 2017. "Data integration for inference about spatial processes: A model-based approach to test and account for data inconsistency," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, October.
    14. Francesco Bartolucci & Fulvia Pennoni, 2007. "A Class of Latent Markov Models for Capture–Recapture Data Allowing for Time, Heterogeneity, and Behavior Effects," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 63(2), pages 568-578, June.
    15. Santostasi, Nina Luisa & Ciucci, Paolo & Bearzi, Giovanni & Bonizzoni, Silvia & Gimenez, Olivier, 2020. "Assessing the dynamics of hybridization through a matrix modelling approach," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 431(C).
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Wszola, Lyndsie S. & Simonsen, Victoria L. & Corral, Lucía & Chizinski, Christopher J. & Fontaine, Joseph J., 2019. "Simulating detection-censored movement records for home range analysis planning," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 392(C), pages 268-278.
    19. 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.
    20. Shirley Pledger & Kenneth H. Pollock & James L. Norris, 2003. "Open Capture-Recapture Models with Heterogeneity: I. Cormack-Jolly-Seber Model," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 59(4), pages 786-794, December.

    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:pone00:0173609. 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: 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.