Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Further Step Toward the Mother-of-All-Models: Flexibility and Functionality in the Modeling of Capture–Recapture Data

  • Chapter
Modeling Demographic Processes In Marked Populations

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

Abstract

The idea behind the mother-of-all-models is to have the likelihoods for commonly used capture–recapture models factorized into conditional likelihoods that can be called and combined on request to give a user specified model. Barker and White (2004) mapped out a conceptual plan for the mother-of-all-models that included the robust design model and joint recapture, live re-sighting models. However they were unable to obtain a factorization that could easily include the multi-state model. Including any missing data directly into the model using data augmentation allows us to write the model in terms of the complete data likelihood (CDL). The CDL is a more natural representation of the model that factors into separate components that can be combined to give many different capture–recapture models, including the multi-state model. Overcoming the obstacles in the factorization brings the mother-of-all-models one step closer with the development of software the next step.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
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

References

  • Barker RJ (1997) Joint modeling of live-recapture, tag-resight, and tag-recovery data. Biometrics 53:666–677.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Barker RJ, Burnham KP, White GC (2004) Encounter history modeling of joint mark-recapture, tag-resighting and tag-recovery data under temporary emigration. Statistica Sinica 14:1037–1055.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Barker RJ, White GC (2004) Towards the mother-of-all-models: customised construction of the mark-recapture likelihood function. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 27:177–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonner SJ, Schwarz CJ (2006) An extension of the Cormack–Jolly–Seber model for continuous covariates with application to Microtus pennsylvanicus. Biometrics 62:142–149.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Brownie C, Hines JE, Nichols JD, Pollock KH, Hestbeck JB (1993) Capture–recapture studies for multiple strata including non-Markovian transition probabilities. Biometrics 49:1173–1187.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP (1991) On a unified theory for release-resampling of animal populations. In: Chao MT, Cheng PE (eds.) Proceedings 1990 Taipei Simposium in Statistics. Institute of Statistical Science, Academia Sinica, Taipei, pp. 11–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP (1993) A theory for combined analysis of ring recovery and recapture data. In: Lebreton J-D, North P (eds.) Marked Individuals in Bird Population Studies. Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, pp. 199–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capp’e O, Moulines E, and Ryd’en T (2005), Inference in Hidden Markov Models, Springer, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choquet R, Reboulet AM, Pradel R, Gimenez O, Lebreton JD (2004) M-SURGE: new software specifically designed for multistate capture–recapture models. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 27:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cormack RM (1964) Estimates of survival from the sighting of marked animals. Biometrika 51:429–438.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Crosbie SF, Manly BFJ (1985) Parsimonious modelling of capture-mark-recapture studies. Biometrics 41:385–398.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Dempster AP, Laird NM, Rubin DB (1977) Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 39:1–38.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Dupuis JA (1995) Bayesian estimation of movement and survival probabilities from capture-recapture data. Biometrika 82:761–772.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Durban JW, Elston DA (2005) Mark-recapture with occasion and individual effects: abundance estimation through Bayesian model selection in a fixed dimensional parameter space. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 10:291–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolly GM (1965) Explicit estimates from capture-recapture data with both death and immigration-stochastic model. Biometrika 52:225–247.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Link WA, Barker RJ (2005) Modeling association among demographic parameters in analysis of open population capture–recapture data. Biometrics 61:46–54.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  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 

  • Pradel R (1996) Utilization of capture-mark-recapture for the study of recruitment and population growth rate. Biometrics 52:703–709.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Pradel R (2005) Multievent: an extension of multistate capture–recapture models to uncertain states. Biometrics 61:442–447.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Royle J, Dorazio R, Link W (2007) Analysis of multinomial models with unknown index using data augmentation. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 16:67–85.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Schofield MR, Barker RJ (2007a) Flexible hierarchical mark-recapture modeling for open populations using WinBUGS. Submitted to Ecological and Environmental Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schofield MR, Barker RJ (2007b) A unified capture–recapture model. Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, In Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz CJ, Arnason AN (1996) A general methodology for the analysis of capture–recapture experiments in open populations. Biometrics 52:860–873.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz CJ, Schweigert JF, Arnason AN (1993) Estimating migration rates using tag-recovery data. Biometrics 49:177–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seber GAF, (1965) A note on the multiple-recapture census. Biometrika 52:249–259.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas A., G., B. N., Lunn D (2003) WinBUGS Version 1.4 User Manual, MRC Biostatistics Unit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanner MA, Wong WH (1987) The calculation of posterior distributions by data augmentation (with discussion). Journal of the American Statistical Society 82:529–550.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • van Dyk DA, Meng XL (2001) The art of data augmentation. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 10:1–50.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • White GC, Burnham KP (1999) Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46S:120–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand

    Matthew R. Schofield

Authors
  1. Matthew R. Schofield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard J. Barker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew R. Schofield .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Konrad-Zuse Strasse 1, D18057 Rostock, Germany

    David L Thomson

  2. Netherlands Institute of Ecology Centre for Terrestrial Ecology, Boterhoeksestraat 48, Postbus 40, 6666 ZG Heteren, Netherlands

    David L Thomson

  3. School of Biological Sciences, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong

    David L Thomson

  4. Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

    Evan G. Cooch

  5. D.B. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

    Michael J. Conroy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schofield, M.R., Barker, R.J. (2009). A Further Step Toward the Mother-of-All-Models: Flexibility and Functionality in the Modeling of Capture–Recapture Data. 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_30

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation