Abstract

AbstractRecently introduced unmarked spatial capture–recapture (SCR), spatial mark–resight (SMR), and 2‐flank spatial partial identity models (SPIMs) extend the domain of SCR to populations or observation systems that do not always allow for individual identity to be determined with certainty. For example, some species do not have natural marks that can reliably produce individual identities from photographs, and some methods of observation produce partial identity samples as is the case with remote cameras that sometimes produce single‐flank photographs. Unmarked SCR, SMR, and SPIM share the feature that they probabilistically resolve the uncertainty in individual identity using the spatial location where samples were collected. Spatial location is informative of individual identity in spatially structured populations because a sample is more likely to have been produced by an individual living near the trap where it was recorded than an individual living further away from the trap. Further, the level of information about individual identity that a spatial location contains is related to two key ecological concepts, population density and home range size, which we quantify using a proposed Identity Diversity Index (IDI). We show that latent and partial identity SCR models produce imprecise and biased density estimates in many high IDI scenarios when data are sparse. We then extend the unmarked SCR model to incorporate categorical, partially identifying covariates, which reduce the level of uncertainty in individual identity, increasing the reliability and precision of density estimates, and allowing reliable density estimation in scenarios with higher IDI values and with more sparse data. We illustrate the performance of this “categorical SPIM” via simulations and by applying it to a black bear data set using microsatellite loci as categorical covariates, where we reproduce the full data set estimates with only slightly less precision using fewer loci than necessary for confident individual identification. We then discuss how the categorical SPIM can be applied to other wildlife sampling scenarios such as remote camera surveys, where natural or researcher‐applied partial marks can be observed in photographs. Finally, we discuss how the categorical SPIM can be added to SMR, 2‐flank SPIM, or other latent identity SCR models.

Highlights

  • Animal population density is a fundamental quantity in wildlife ecology, and estimating population density is a primary challenge for ecologists (Laake et al 1993, Efford 2004)

  • We show via simulation that in scenarios with more sparse data than previously considered and/or scenarios with larger rs and higher densities, the unmarked spatial capture–recapture (SCR) density estimator is biased, very imprecise, and the parameters are frequently not identifiable, demonstrating the importance of population density and home range size to the application of latent and partial identity SCR models

  • We demonstrate that all uncertainty in individual identity can be removed with enough categorical identity covariates, producing equivalent estimates to an SCR model where all identities are known with certainty

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Animal population density is a fundamental quantity in wildlife ecology, and estimating population density is a primary challenge for ecologists (Laake et al 1993, Efford 2004). The unmarked SCR model and categorical SPIM use a process similar to data augmentation to estimate population abundance and density (Royle et al 2007) and to model the uncertainty in individual identity by providing latent structure to allow for different configurations of the observed samples across the individuals in the population (Chandler and Royle 2013, Augustine et al 2018). Despite the large number of genotypes at each locus, the majority of individuals shared just 2–4 genotypes at each locus, making them less informative than if the loci-specific genotypes were distributed as they were in our simulation studies The goal of this analysis was to fit the categorical SPIM using from 1 to 7 loci, added in the order listed above, and to compare the estimates to the null SCR estimate that does not allow for any uncertainty in individual identity. The posterior probability that three of the partial genotype samples each came from separate individuals not represented in the full genotype data set was 1, while the fourth partial genotype sample matched with 8 other samples from 1 individual, each with posterior probability 1

DISCUSSION
Findings
LITERATURE CITED
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call