Abstract

AbstractCommunity N‐mixture abundance models for replicated counts provide a powerful and novel framework for drawing inferences related to species abundance within communities subject to imperfect detection. To assess the performance of these models, and to compare them to related community occupancy models in situations with marginal information, we used simulation to examine the effects of mean abundance : 0.1, 0.5, 1, 5), detection probability : 0.1, 0.2, 0.5), and number of sampling sites (nsite: 10, 20, 40) and visits (nvisit: 2, 3, 4) on the bias and precision of species‐level parameters (mean abundance and covariate effect) and a community‐level parameter (species richness). Bias and imprecision of estimates decreased when any of the four variables , , nsite, nvisit) increased. Detection probability was most important for the estimates of mean abundance, while was most influential for covariate effect and species richness estimates. For all parameters, increasing nsite was more beneficial than increasing nvisit. Minimal conditions for obtaining adequate performance of community abundance models were nsite ≥ 20, ≥ 0.2, and ≥ 0.5. At lower abundance, the performance of community abundance and community occupancy models as species richness estimators were comparable. We then used additive partitioning analysis to reveal that raw species counts can overestimate β diversity both of species richness and the Shannon index, while community abundance models yielded better estimates. Community N‐mixture abundance models thus have great potential for use with community ecology or conservation applications provided that replicated counts are available.

Highlights

  • The abundance of organisms is of central interest in ecology (Ehrlich and Roughgarden 1987)

  • Detection probability p was most important for the estimates of mean abundance, while k was most influential for covariate effect and species richness estimates

  • Bias and precision of estimators under the community abundance models To assess the performance of community abundance models, we focused on the bias and precision of the estimates of the following parameters: species-level intercepts (b0i) and slopes (b1i) in the abundance model and overall species richness (R)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The abundance of organisms is of central interest in ecology (Ehrlich and Roughgarden 1987). Abundance measurements are almost always affected by imperfect detection; that is, abundance is underestimated when detection probability is less than 1. Detection probability may vary by species, observer, survey method and environment (Royle and Dorazio 2008; Kery and Schaub 2012; Kery and Royle 2016). The consequences of imperfect detection can vary widely, and can prevail in the analysis of abundance from local habitat to regional-scales (Lahoz-Monfort et al 2014; Higa et al 2015). If absolute abundance needs to be estimated and/or if detection probability depends on covariates that affect abundance, detection probability must be accounted for in any modeling framework for estimating abundance (Kery 2008; Kery et al 2010; Yamaura 2013)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

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

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.