Double-observer evaluation of pronghorn aerial line-transect surveys

Abstract

Context Distance sampling is used to estimate abundance for several taxa, including pronghorn (Antilocapra americana). Comparisons between population estimates derived from quadrat sampling and distance sampling suggest that distance sampling underestimates pronghorn density, likely owing to violations of the critical assumption of distance sampling that all pronghorn within the innermost distance band (A band; nearest to the aircraft) are detected. Aims We sought to rigorously test the assumption that all pronghorn clusters are detected within the innermost distance band by applying a double-observer approach to an established pronghorn aerial-survey protocol. Additionally, we evaluated potential effects of cluster size, landscape composition and seat position (front seat versus rear) on the probability of detection. Methods We conducted aerial line-transect distance-sampling surveys using independent, paired observers and modelled the probability of detection with mark–recapture distance-sampling (MRDS) analysis techniques that explicitly estimate the probability of detection for pronghorn clusters in the innermost distance band. We compared density estimates produced by the MRDS analysis with those produced by multiple-covariate distance sampling (MCDS), a method that assumes complete detection for clusters on the transect line. Key results We identified violations of the assumption that all clusters within the innermost distance band were detected, which would contribute to proportional biases in density estimates for analysis techniques that assume complete detection. The frequency of missed clusters was modest from the front-seat position, with 45 of the 47 (96%) clusters in the A band detected. In contrast, the frequency of missed clusters was more substantial for the rear position, from which 37 of 47 (79%) clusters in the A band were detected. Further, our analysis showed that cluster size and landscape composition were important factors for pronghorn sightability. Conclusions When implementing standard survey methodologies, pronghorn aerial-line transect surveys underestimated population densities. A double-observer survey configuration allowed us to quantify and correct for the bias caused by the failure of observers to detect all pronghorn clusters within the innermost distance band. Implications Population monitoring programs should incorporate double-observer validation trials to quantify the extent of bias owing to undetected clusters within the innermost distance band realised under typical survey conditions. Wildlife managers can improve the precision of pronghorn aerial line-transect surveys by incorporating cluster size and measures of landscape composition and complexity into detection models without incurring additional survey costs.