An empirical probability model of detecting species at low densities

Abstract

False negatives, not detecting things that are actually present, are an important but understudied problem. False negatives are the result of our inability to perfectly detect species, especially those at low density such as endangered species or newly arriving introduced species. They reduce our ability to interpret presence-absence survey data and make sound management decisions (e.g., rapid response). To reduce the probability of false negatives, we need to compare the efficacy and sensitivity of different sampling approaches and quantify an unbiased estimate of the probability of detection. We conducted field experiments in the intertidal zone of New England and New York to test the sensitivity of two sampling approaches (quadrat vs. total area search, TAS), given different target characteristics (mobile vs. sessile). Using logistic regression we built detection curves for each sampling approach that related the sampling intensity and the density of targets to the probability of detection. The TAS approach reduced the probability of false negatives and detected targets faster than the quadrat approach. Mobility of targets increased the time to detection but did not affect detection success. Finally, we interpreted two years of presence-absence data on the distribution of the Asian shore crab (Hemigrapsus sanguineus) in New England and New York, using our probability model for false negatives. The type of experimental approach in this paper can help to reduce false negatives and increase our ability to detect species at low densities by refining sampling approaches, which can guide conservation strategies and management decisions in various areas of ecology such as conservation biology and invasion ecology.