Environmental and Ecological Statistics

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 71–93 | Cite as

Bayesian estimation of species relative abundances and habitat preferences using opportunistic data

  • Camille CoronEmail author
  • Clément Calenge
  • Christophe Giraud
  • Romain Julliard


We develop a new statistical procedure to monitor relative species abundances and their respective preferences for different habitat types, using opportunistic data. Following Giraud et al. (Biometrics 72(2):649–658, 2015), we combine the opportunistic data with some standardized data in order to correct the bias inherent to the opportunistic data collection. Species observations are modeled by Poisson distributions whose parameters quantify species abundances and habitat preferences, and are estimated using Bayesian computations. Our main contributions are (i) to tackle the bias induced by habitat selection behaviors, (ii) to handle data where the habitat type associated to each observation is unknown, (iii) to estimate probabilities of selection of habitat for the species. As an illustration, we estimate common bird species habitat preferences and abundances in the region of Aquitaine (France).


Citizen science Estimation of species relative abundances Habitat selection Opportunistic data Resource selection function 



The authors would like to thank Benjamin Auder for his contribution to the computer code for data treatment. We sincerely thank Denis Roux and all observers from the ACT network. We also thank the managers of both programs Open image in new window Faune d’Aquitaine Open image in new window and STOC-EPS, as well as the observers participating to these programs. This work was partially funded by public grants as part of the “Investissement d’avenir” project, reference ANR-11-LABX-0056-LMH, LabEx LMH, and reference ANR-10-CAMP-0151-02, Fondation Mathématiques Jacques Hadamard, by the Chair “Modélisation Mathématique et Biodiversité” of VEOLIA-Ecole Polytechnique-MNHN-F.X, and by the Mission for Interdisciplinarity at CNRS.

Supplementary material

10651_2018_398_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (267 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 267 KB)
10651_2018_398_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (239 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (pdf 238 KB)


  1. Ball S, Morris R, Rotheray G, Watt K (2011) Atlas of the hoverflies of great britain (diptera, syrphidae). Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellamy PE, Brown NJ, Enoksson B, Firbank LG, Fuller RJ, Hinsley SA, Schotman AGM (1998) The influences of habitat, landscape structure and climate on local distribution patterns of the nuthatch (Sitta europaea L.). Oecologia 115(1–2):127–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Biggs CR, Olden JD (2011) Multi-scale habitat occupancy of invasive lionfish (Pterois volitans) in coral reef environments of roatan, honduras. Aquat Invasions 6:347–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boutin J, Roux D, Eraud C (2003) Breeding bird monitoring in France: the act survey. Ornis Hung 12(13):1–2Google Scholar
  5. Boyce M, McDonald L (1999) Relating populations to habitats using resource selection functions. Trends Ecol Evol 14:268–272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Buckland S, Anderson D, Burnham K, Laake J (1993) Distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. Chapman & Hall, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calenge C, Dufour A, Maillard D (2005) K-select analysis: a new method to analyse habitat selection in radio-tracking studies. Ecol Model 186:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dickinson JL, Zuckerberg B, Bonter DN (2010) Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41(1):149–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fithian W, Elith J, Hastie T, Keith D (2014) Bias correction in species distribution models: pooling survey and collection data for multiple species. Methods Ecol Evol 6:424–438CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Fuller RM, Devereux BJ, Gillings S, Amable GS, Hill RA (2005) Indices of bird-habitat preference from field surveys of birds and remote sensing of land cover: a study of south-eastern England with wider implications for conservation and biodiversity assessment. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 14:223–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Giraud C, Calenge C, Coron C, Julliard R (2015) Capitalizing on opportunistic data for monitoring species relative abundances. Biometrics 72(2):649–658CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Isaac NJB, van Strien AJ, August TA, de Zeeuw MP, Roy DB (2014) Statistics for citizen science: extracting signals of change from noisy ecological data. Methods Ecol Evol 5:1052–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jiguet F, Devictor V, Julliard R, Couvet D (2012) French citizens monitoring ordinary birds provide tools for conservation and ecological sciences. Acta Oecol 44:58–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lele SR, Merrill EH, Keim J, Boyce MS (2013) Selection, use, choice and occupancy: clarifying concepts in resource selection studies. J Anim Ecol 82:1183–1191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Link WA, Sauer JR (1998) Estimating population change from count data: application to the North American breeding bird survey. Ecol Appl 8:258–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. MacKenzie D (2005) What are the issues with presence–absence data for wildlife managers? J Wildl Manag 69:849–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mair L, Ruete A (2016) Explaining spatial variation in the recording effort of citizen science data across multiple taxa. PLoS ONE 11(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Manly B, McDonald L, Thomas D, MacDonald T, Erickson W (2002) Resource selection by animals. Statistical design and analysis for field studies. Kluwer Academic Publisher, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Mason CF, Macdonald SM (2004) Distribution of foraging rooks, corvus frugilegus, and rookeries in a landscape in Eastern England dominated by winter cereals. Folia Zool 53(2):179–188Google Scholar
  20. Mysterud A, Ims R (1998) Functional responses in habitat use: availability influences relative use in trade-off situations. Ecology 79:1435–1441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Phillips S, Dudík M, Elith J, Graham C, Lehmann A, Leathwick J, Ferrier S (2009) Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. Ecol Appl 19:181–197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Plummer M (2003) Jags: a program for analysis of bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. In:3rd International workshop on distributed statistical computing (DSC 2003), vol 124. Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  23. Plummer M (2014) Rjags: Bayesian graphical models using MCMC. R package version, pp. 3–13Google Scholar
  24. Pollock KH (1982) A capture recapture design robust to unequal probability of capture. J Wildl Manag 46:752–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Core Team R (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  26. Roy H, Adriaens T, Isaac N, Kenis M, Martin G, Brown PEA (2012) Invasive alien predator causes rapid declines of native European ladybirds. Divers Distrib 18:717–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Royle JA, Nichols JD, Kéry M (2005) Modelling occurrence and abundance of species when detection is imperfect. Oikos 110(2):353–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Telfer M, Preston C, Rothery P (2002) A general method for measuring relative change in range size from biological atlas data. Biol Conserv 107:99–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tulloch A, Szabo J (2012) A behavioural ecology approach to understand volunteer surveying for citizen science datasets. Emu 112:313–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van Strien A, van Swaay C, Termaat T (2013) Opportunistic citizen science data of animal species produce reliable estimates of distribution trends if analysed with occupancy models. J Appl Ecol 50:1450–1458CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire de Mathématiques d’Orsay, Univ. Paris-Sud, CNRSUniversité Paris-SaclayOrsayFrance
  2. 2.Office National de la Chasse et de la Faune SauvageLe Perray en YvelinesFrance
  3. 3.CESCO, UMR CNRS 7204, Muséum National d’Histoire NaturelleParisFrance

Personalised recommendations