Environmental and Ecological Statistics

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 305–313

A capture-recapture model with heterogeneity and behavioural response

  • James L. NorrisIII
  • Kenneth H. Pollock
Papers

Abstract

We develop the non-parametric maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) of the full Mbh capture-recapture model which utilizes both initial capture and recapture data and permits both heterogeneity (h) between animals and behavioural (b) response to capture. Our MLE procedure utilizes non-parametric maximum likelihood estimation of mixture distributions (Lindsay, 1983; Lindsay and Roeder, 1992) and the EM algorithm (Dempsteret al., 1977). Our MLE estimate provides the first non-parametric estimate of the bivariate capture-recapture distribution.

Since non-parametric maximum likelihood estimation exists for submodels Mh (allowing heterogeneity only), Mb (allowing behavioural response only) and M0 (allowing no changes), we develop maximum likelihood-based model selection, specifically the Akaike information criterion (AIC) (Akaike, 1973). The AIC procedure does well in detecting behavioural response but has difficulty in detecting heterogeneity.

Keywords

Bivariate distribution bootstrap EM algorithm mixture distribution 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akaike, H. (1973) Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: B.N. Petrov and F. Csaki (eds)2nd International Symposium on Information Theory, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest.Google Scholar
  2. Akaike, H. (1981) Likelihood of a model and information criteria.Journal of Econometrics,16, 3–14.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P. and White, G.C. (1994) AIC model selection in overdispersed capture-recapture data.Ecology,75(6), 1780–93.Google Scholar
  4. Dempster, A.P., Laird, N.M. and Rubin, D.B. (1977) Maximum likelihood estimation from incomplete data via the EM algorithm.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 30, 1–38.Google Scholar
  5. DerSimonian, R. (1986) Maximum likelihood estimation of a mixing distribution.Applied Statistics,35, 301–9.Google Scholar
  6. Lee, S. and Chao, A. (1994) Estimating population size via sample coverage for closed capture-recapture models.Biometrics,50, 88–97.Google Scholar
  7. Lindsay, B.G. (1983) The geometry of mixture likelihoods, a general theory.Annals of Statistics,11, 86–94.Google Scholar
  8. Lindsay, B.G. and Roeder, K. (1992) Residual diagnostics for mixture models.Journal of the American Statistical Association,87, 785–94.Google Scholar
  9. Norris, J.L. and Pollock, K.H. (1995) Nonparametric MLE under two closed capture-recapture models with heterogeneity. In press,Biometrics.Google Scholar
  10. Otis, D.L., Burnham, K.P., White, G.C. and Anderson, D.R. (1978) Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations.Wildlife Monographs,62.Google Scholar
  11. Pollock, K.H. (1974) The assumption of equal catchability of animals in tag-recapture experiments. Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  12. Pollock, K.H. and Otto, M.C. (1983) Robust estimation of population size in closed animal populations from capture-recapture experiments.Biometrics,39, 1035–50.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman & Hall 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • James L. NorrisIII
    • 1
  • Kenneth H. Pollock
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceWake Forest UniversityWinston-SalemUSA
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations