Skip to main content

Density Estimation by Spatially Explicit Capture–Recapture: Likelihood-Based Methods

  • Chapter
Modeling Demographic Processes In Marked Populations

Part of the book series: Environmental and Ecological Statistics ((ENES,volume 3))

Abstract

Population density is a key ecological variable, and it has recently been shown how captures on an array of traps over several closely-spaced time intervals may be modelled to provide estimates of population density (Borchers and Efford 2007). Specifics of the model depend on the properties of the traps (more generally ‘detectors’). We provide a concise description of the newly developed likelihood-based methods and extend them to include ‘proximity detectors’ that do not restrict the movements of animals after detection. This class of detector includes passive DNA sampling and camera traps. The probability model for spatial detection histories comprises a submodel for the distribution of home-range centres (e.g. 2-D Poisson) and a detection submodel (e.g. halfnormal function of distance between a range centre and a trap). The model may be fitted by maximising either the full likelihood or the likelihood conditional on the number of animals observed. A wide variety of other effects on detection probability may be included in the likelihood using covariates or mixture models, and differences in density between sites or between times may also be modelled. We apply the method to data on stoats Mustela erminea in a New Zealand beech forest identified by microsatellite DNA from hair samples. The method assumes that multiple individuals may be recorded at a detector on one occasion. Formal extension to ‘single-catch’ traps is difficult, but in our simulations the ‘multi-catch’ model yielded nearly unbiased estimates of density for moderate levels of trap saturation (≤ 86% traps occupied), even when animals were clustered or the traps spanned a gradient in density.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Borchers and Efford (2007) use \( p_s^1 \) for p s

  2. 2.

    Independence may not always be appropriate: intuitively, an animal that spreads its activity over a larger area will become less trappable at any particular place. An alternative parameterization would scale g 0 by 1/σ2, as in the pdf of a bivariate normal distribution.

  3. 3.

    We do not address here the problems of identification due to ‘allelic dropout’ and other difficulties when the samples contain only small amounts of DNA that is potentially degraded.

References

  • Borchers DL, Efford MG (2007) Spatially explicit maximum likelihood methods for capture–recapture studies. Biometrics OnlineEarly doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2007.00927.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulanger J, McLellan B (2001) Closure violation in DNA-based mark–recapture estimation of grizzly bear populations. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:642–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulanger J, McLellan BN, Woods JG, Proctor MF, Strobeck C (2004) Sampling design and bias in DNA-based capture–mark–recapture population and density estimates of grizzly bears. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:457–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL, Borchers DL, Thomas L (2001) Introduction to distance sampling. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Chao A, Huggins RM (2005) Modern closed population models. In: Amstrup SC, McDonald TL, Manly BFJ (eds) Handbook of capture–recapture methods. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 58–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Duckworth J, Byrom AE, Fisher P, Horn C (2005) Pest control: does the answer lie in new biotechnologies? In: Allen RB, Lee WG (eds) Biological invasions in New Zealand. Springer, Berlin, pp 421–434

    Google Scholar 

  • Efford MG (2004) Density estimation in live-trapping studies. Oikos 106:598–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efford MG (2007) Density 4.1: software for spatially explicit capture–recapture. Department of Zoology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. http://www.otago.ac.nz/density.

  • Efford MG, Dawson DK, Robbins CS (2004) Density: software for analyzing capture–recapture data from passive detector arrays. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 27:217–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Efford MG, Warburton B, Coleman MC, Barker RJ (2005) A field test of two methods for density estimation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:731–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genz AC, Malik AA (1980) Remarks on algorithm 006: an adaptive algorithm for numerical integration over an N-dimensional rectangular region. Journal of Computational and Applied mathematics 6:295–302

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Huggins RM (1989) On the statistical analysis of capture experiments. Biometrika 76:133–140

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Jett DA, Nichols JD (1987) A field comparison of nested grid and trapping web density estimators. Journal of Mammalogy 68:888–892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karanth KU, Nichols JD (1998) Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79:2852–2862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King CM, Murphy EC (2005) Stoat. In: King CM (ed) Handbook of New Zealand mammals. 2nd edition. Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, pp 261–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills LS, Citta JJ, Lair KP, Schwartz MK, Tallmon DA (2000) Estimating animal abundance using noninvasive DNA sampling: promise and pitfalls. Ecological Applications 10:283–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otis DL, Burnham KP, White GC, Anderson DR (1978) Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife Monographs 62:1–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Pledger S (2000) Unified maximum likelihood estimates for closed capture–recapture models using mixtures. Biometrics 56:434–442

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock KH (1982) A capture–recapture design robust to unequal probability of capture. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:752–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soisalo MK, Cavalcanti SMC (2006) Estimating the density of a jaguar population in the Brazilian Pantanal using camera-traps and capture–recapture sampling in combination with GPS radio-telemetry. Biological Conservation 129:487–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trolle M, Kéry M (2003) Estimation of ocelot density in the Pantanal using capture–recapture analysis of camera-trapping data. Journal of Mammalogy 84:607–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White GC, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Otis DL (1982) Capture–recapture and removal methods for sampling closed populations. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams BK, Nichols JD, Conroy MJ (2002) Analysis and management of animal populations. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods JG, Paetkau D, Lewis D, McLellan BN, Proctor M, Strobeck C (1999) Genetic tagging free ranging black and brown bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:616–627.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Murray G. Efford .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Efford, M.G., Borchers, D.L., Byrom, A.E. (2009). Density Estimation by Spatially Explicit Capture–Recapture: Likelihood-Based Methods. In: Thomson, D.L., Cooch, E.G., Conroy, M.J. (eds) Modeling Demographic Processes In Marked Populations. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, vol 3. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-78151-8_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics