Population Ecology

, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp 109–117 | Cite as

Bounded random walks as a null model for evaluating population trends

Original article


Management of wildlife and protection of endangered species depend on determination of population trends. Because population changes are stochastic and autoregressive, there is reason to believe that population trends might not be properly determined by simple regression over short time periods. A bounded random walk (BRW) model is introduced as a null model for evaluating population trends. The BRW model shows long-term stability but rising and falling sequences of up to many decades. For a given variability and survey length, there will be an expected probability of finding a greater than X% slope simply by chance. This false positive probability needs to be considered when evaluating trends. Breeding Bird Survey data for 128 species over 46 years for two states were analyzed for trends for different series lengths. Trends estimated from short series were likely to not agree with the 46-year trends. Very short series (e.g., 5 years) tended to indicate no trend due to loss of statistical power. A 101-year series for sandwich term (Sterna sandvicensis) revealed that even for 40 year-long series, 33% of subset series had a negative trend compared to the strong 101 year full series positive trend. The BRW model simulations and both data sets pointed to 20 years as a minimum time period for estimating trends reliably, though this can be longer for species that tend to cycle. Proper inference should thus consider the implications of inherent time series variability.


Endangered species False positives Sample size Sampling Trend 

Supplementary material

10144_2017_574_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (293 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 292 KB)


  1. Baillie SR, Rehfisch MM (eds) (2006) National and site-based alert systems for UK birds. BTO Research Report No. 226. British Trust for Ornithology, ThetfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker RJ, Sauer JR (1992) Modeling population change from time series data. In: McCullough DR, Barrett RH (eds) Wildlife 2001: populations. Elsevier, New York, pp 182–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Demerdzhiev D, Horváth M, Kovács A, Stoychev S, Karyakin I (2011) Status and population trend of the Eastern Imperial Eagle (Aquila heliaca) in Europe in the period 2000–2010. Acta Zool Bulg Suppl 3:5–14Google Scholar
  4. Drew GS, Piatt JF, Bodkin JL (2007) Population status and trends of marine birds and mammals in Glacier Bay National Park. In: Piatt JR, Gende SM (eds) Proceedings of the fourth glacier bay science symposium. United States Geological Survey, Washington DC, pp 129–132Google Scholar
  5. Faaborg J, Dugger KM, Arendt WJ, Woodworth BL, Baltz ME (1997) Population declines of the Puerto Rican vireo in Guánica forest. Wilson Bull 109:195–202Google Scholar
  6. Garshelis DL, Hristienko H (2006) State and provincial estimates of American black bear numbers versus assessments of population trend. Ursus 17:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Garthe S, Flore B-O (2007) Population trend over 100 years and conservation needs of breeding sandwich terns (Sterna sandvicensis) on the German North Sea coast. J Ornithol 148:215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gerrodette T (1987) A power analysis for detecting trends. Ecology 68:1364–1372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kéry M, Dorazio RM, Soldaat L, van Strien A, Zuiderwijk A, Royle JA (2009) Trend estimation in populations with imperfect detection. J Appl Ecol 46:1163–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kéry M, Royle A, Schmid H, Schaub M, Volet B, Häfliger G, Zbinden N (2010) Site-occupancy distribution modeling to correct population-trend estimates derived from opportunistic observations. Conserv Biol 24:1388–1397CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Leopold BD, Hurst GA, Miller DA (1996) Long-versus short-term research and effective management: a case study using the wild turkey. North Am Wildl Nat Resour Conf (USA) 61:472–482Google Scholar
  12. Lindley ST (2003) Estimation of population growth and extinction parameters from noisy data. Ecol Appl 13:806–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lindström J (1994) Tetraonid population studies—state of the art. Ann Zool Fenn 31:347–364Google Scholar
  14. Link WA, Nichols JD (1994) On the importance of sampling variance to investigations of temporal variation in animal population size. Oikos 69:539–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Link WA, Sauer JR (1997) Estimation of population trajectories from count data. Biometrics 53:488–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Magurran AE, Baillie SR, Buckland ST, Dick JM, Elston DA, Scott EM, Smith RI, Somerfield PJ, Watt AD (2010) Long-term datasets in biodiversity research and monitoring: assessing change in ecological communities through time. Trends Ecol Evol 25:574–582CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. McCain C, Szewczyk T, Knight KB (2016) Population variability complicates the accurate detection of climate change responses. Global Change Biol 22:2081–2093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Newman KB, Lindley ST (2006) Accounting for demographic and environmental stochasticity, observation error, and parameter uncertainty in fish population dynamics models. N Am J Fish Manag 26:685–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peterjohn BG, Sauer JR (1994) Population trends of woodland birds from the North American Breeding Bird Survey. Wildl Soc Bull 22:155–164Google Scholar
  21. Peterman RM (1990) Statistical power analysis can improve fisheries research and management. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 47:2–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Santos X, Llorente GA (2009) Decline of a common reptile: case study of the viperine snake Natrix maura in a Mediterranean wetland. Acta. Herpetologica 4:161–169Google Scholar
  23. Thogmartin WE, Howe FP, James FC, Johnson DH, Reed ET, Sauer JR, Thompson RF III (2006) A review of the population estimation approach of the North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Auk 123:892–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. van Strien A, Pannekoek J, Hagemeijer W, Verstrael T (2004) A loglinear Poisson regression method to analyse bird monitoring data. Bird Census News 13:33–39Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Population Ecology and Springer Japan 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.NapervilleUSA
  2. 2.NapervilleUSA

Personalised recommendations