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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Borchers and Efford (2007) use \( p_s^1 \) for p s
- 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.
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.
Boulanger J, McLellan B (2001) Closure violation in DNA-based mark–recapture estimation of grizzly bear populations. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:642–651
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
Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL, Borchers DL, Thomas L (2001) Introduction to distance sampling. Oxford University Press, Oxford
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
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
Efford MG (2004) Density estimation in live-trapping studies. Oikos 106:598–610
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
Efford MG, Warburton B, Coleman MC, Barker RJ (2005) A field test of two methods for density estimation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:731–738
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
Huggins RM (1989) On the statistical analysis of capture experiments. Biometrika 76:133–140
Jett DA, Nichols JD (1987) A field comparison of nested grid and trapping web density estimators. Journal of Mammalogy 68:888–892
Karanth KU, Nichols JD (1998) Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79:2852–2862
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
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
Otis DL, Burnham KP, White GC, Anderson DR (1978) Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife Monographs 62:1–135
Pledger S (2000) Unified maximum likelihood estimates for closed capture–recapture models using mixtures. Biometrics 56:434–442
Pollock KH (1982) A capture–recapture design robust to unequal probability of capture. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:752–757
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
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
White GC, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Otis DL (1982) Capture–recapture and removal methods for sampling closed populations. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos
Williams BK, Nichols JD, Conroy MJ (2002) Analysis and management of animal populations. Academic Press, San Diego
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-78151-8_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-78150-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-78151-8
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)