IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0252231.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Abundance estimation for line transect sampling: A comparison of distance sampling and spatial capture-recapture models

Author

Listed:
  • Nathan J Crum
  • Lisa C Neyman
  • Timothy A Gowan

Abstract

Accurate and precise abundance estimation is vital for informed wildlife conservation and management decision-making. Line transect surveys are a common sampling approach for abundance estimation. Distance sampling is often used to estimate abundance from line transect survey data; however, search encounter spatial capture-recapture can also be used when individuals in the population of interest are identifiable. The search encounter spatial capture-recapture model has rarely been applied, and its performance has not been compared to that of distance sampling. We analyzed simulated datasets to compare the performance of distance sampling and spatial capture-recapture abundance estimators. Additionally, we estimated the abundance of North Atlantic right whales in the southeastern United States with two formulations of each model and compared the estimates. Spatial capture-recapture abundance estimates had lower root mean squared error than distance sampling estimates. Spatial capture-recapture 95% credible intervals for abundance had nominal coverage, i.e., contained the simulating value for abundance in 95% of simulations, whereas distance sampling credible intervals had below nominal coverage. Moreover, North Atlantic right whale abundance estimates from distance sampling models were more sensitive to model specification compared to spatial capture-recapture estimates. When estimating abundance from line transect data, researchers should consider using search encounter spatial capture-recapture when individuals in the population of interest are identifiable, when line transects are surveyed over multiple occasions, when there is imperfect detection of individuals located on the line transect, and when it is safe to assume the population of interest is closed demographically. When line transects are surveyed over multiple occasions, researchers should be aware that individual space use may induce spatial autocorrelation in counts across transects. This is not accounted for in common distance sampling estimators and leads to overly precise abundance estimates.

Suggested Citation

  • Nathan J Crum & Lisa C Neyman & Timothy A Gowan, 2021. "Abundance estimation for line transect sampling: A comparison of distance sampling and spatial capture-recapture models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-17, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0252231
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252231
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0252231
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0252231&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0252231?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. D. L. Borchers & B. C. Stevenson & D. Kidney & L. Thomas & T. A. Marques, 2015. "A Unifying Model for Capture-Recapture and Distance Sampling Surveys of Wildlife Populations," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 110(509), pages 195-204, March.
    2. Richard Glennie & David L. Borchers & Matthew Murchie & Bart J. Harmsen & Rebecca J. Foster, 2019. "Open population maximum likelihood spatial capture‐recapture," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 75(4), pages 1345-1355, December.
    3. Rachel M. Fewster & Stephen T. Buckland & Kenneth P. Burnham & David L. Borchers & Peter E. Jupp & Jeffrey L. Laake & Len Thomas, 2009. "Estimating the Encounter Rate Variance in Distance Sampling," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 65(1), pages 225-236, March.
    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 McLaughlin & Haim Bar, 2021. "A spatial capture–recapture model with attractions between individuals," Environmetrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(1), February.
    2. 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.
    3. Hiroshi Okamura & Shingo Minamikawa & Hans J. Skaug & Toshiya Kishiro, 2012. "Abundance Estimation of Long-Diving Animals Using Line Transect Methods," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 68(2), pages 504-513, June.
    4. Felix T. Petersma & Len Thomas & Aaron M. Thode & Danielle Harris & Tiago A. Marques & Gisela V. Cheoo & Katherine H. Kim, 2024. "Accommodating False Positives Within Acoustic Spatial Capture–Recapture, with Variable Source Levels, Noisy Bearings and an Inhomogeneous Spatial Density," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 29(3), pages 471-490, September.
    5. Devin S. Johnson & Jeffrey L. Laake & Jay M. Ver Hoef, 2010. "A Model-Based Approach for Making Ecological Inference from Distance Sampling Data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(1), pages 310-318, March.
    6. Muhammad Nawaz Rajpar & Shahab Ali Khan & Allah Ditta & Hayssam M. Ali & Sami Ullah & Muhammad Ibrahim & Altaf Hussain Rajpar & Mohamed Zakaria & Mohamed Z. M. Salem, 2021. "Subtropical Broad-Leaved Urban Forests as the Foremost Dynamic and Complex Habitats for a Wide Range of Bird Species," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-20, November.
    7. Yang Liu & Yukun Liu & Yan Fan & Han Geng, 2018. "Likelihood ratio confidence interval for the abundance under binomial detectability models," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 81(5), pages 549-568, July.
    8. Murray G. Efford & Matthew R. Schofield, 2020. "A spatial open‐population capture‐recapture model," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 76(2), pages 392-402, June.
    9. R. M. Fewster, 2011. "Variance Estimation for Systematic Designs in Spatial Surveys," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(4), pages 1518-1531, December.
    10. Shen, Jinyu & Zhang, Yijing & Zhou, Wei & Song, Zhenjiang & Duan, Wei, 2022. "Dynamics and determinants of household's non-timber forest products collection in the giant panda nature reserves of China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    11. M. G. Efford, 2022. "Efficient Discretization of Movement Kernels for Spatiotemporal Capture–Recapture," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 27(4), pages 641-651, December.
    12. Matthew R. Schofield & Richard J. Barker & William A. Link & Heloise Pavanato, 2023. "Estimating population size: The importance of model and estimator choice," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(4), pages 3803-3817, December.
    13. Nathan J Hostetter & Nicholas J Lunn & Evan S Richardson & Eric V Regehr & Sarah J Converse, 2021. "Age-structured Jolly-Seber model expands inference and improves parameter estimation from capture-recapture data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-19, June.
    14. Tiago Marques & Stephen Buckland & Regina Bispo & Brett Howland, 2013. "Accounting for animal density gradients using independent information in distance sampling surveys," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 22(1), pages 67-80, March.

    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:pone00:0252231. 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.