Advertisement

Population Ecology

, Volume 59, Issue 4, pp 293–300 | Cite as

Spatially explicit dynamic N-mixture models

Original article

Abstract

Knowledge of demographic parameters such as survival, reproduction, emigration, and immigration is essential to understand metapopulation dynamics. Traditionally the estimation of these demographic parameters requires intensive data from marked animals. The development of dynamic N-mixture models makes it possible to estimate demographic parameters from count data of unmarked animals, but the original dynamic N-mixture model does not distinguish emigration and immigration from survival and reproduction, limiting its ability to explain important metapopulation processes such as movement among local populations. In this study we developed a spatially explicit dynamic N-mixture model that estimates survival, reproduction, emigration, local population size, and detection probability from count data under the assumption that movement only occurs among adjacent habitat patches. Simulation studies showed that the inference of our model depends on detection probability, local population size, and the implementation of robust sampling design. Our model provides reliable estimates of survival, reproduction, and emigration when detection probability is high, regardless of local population size or the type of sampling design. When detection probability is low, however, our model only provides reliable estimates of survival, reproduction, and emigration when local population size is moderate to high and robust sampling design is used. A sensitivity analysis showed that our model is robust against the violation of the assumption that movement only occurs among adjacent habitat patches, suggesting wide applications of this model. Our model can be used to improve our understanding of metapopulation dynamics based on count data that are relatively easy to collect in many systems.

Keywords

Abundance Dail and Madsen model Demography Hidden Markov model Metapopulation dynamics Movement 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research was funded by Research Work Order 91 (G11AC20327), from the US Fish and Wildlife Service to Colorado State University through the US Geological Survey Colorado Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government.

References

  1. Bellier E, Kéry M, Schaub M (2016) Simulation-based assessment of dynamic N-mixture models in the presence of density dependence and environmental stochasticity. Methods Ecol Evol 7:1029–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blums P, Mednis A, Bauga I, Nichols JD, Hines JE (1996) Age-specific survival and philopatry in three species of European ducks: a long-term study. Condor 98:61–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brooks SP, Gelman A (1998) General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. J Comput Graph Stat 7:434–455Google Scholar
  4. Dail D, Madsen L (2011) Models for estimating abundance from repeated counts of an open metapopulation. Biometrics 67:577–587CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dennis B, Ponciano JM, Lele SR, Taper ML, Staples DF (2006) Estimating density dependence, process noise, and observation error. Ecol Monogr 76:323–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gilpin M (2012) Metapopulation dynamics: empirical and theoretical investigations. Academic Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hanski I, Thomas CD (1994) Metapopulation dynamics and conservation: a spatially explicit model applied to butterflies. Biol Conserv 68:167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hostetler JA, Chandler RB (2015) Improved state-space models for inference about spatial and temporal variation in abundance from count data. Ecology 96:1713–1723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kellner K (2015) jagsUI: a wrapper around rjags to streamline JAGS analyses. R package version 1. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/jagsUI/index.html, Accessed 3 Dec 2016
  11. Marsh DM, Trenham PC (2001) Metapopulation dynamics and amphibian conservation. Conserv Biol 15:40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Owen-Smith N, Mason DR, Ogutu JO (2005) Correlates of survival rates for 10 African ungulate populations: density, rainfall and predation. J Anim Ecol 74:774–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Plummer M (2003) JAGS: a program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. In: Plummer M (ed) Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on distributed statistical computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  14. Pollock KH (1991) Review papers: modeling capture, recapture, and removal statistics for estimation of demographic parameters for fish and wildlife populations: past, present, and future. J Am Stat Assoc 86:225–238Google Scholar
  15. R Development Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.r-project.org/, Accessed 3 Apr 2013
  16. Rossman S, Yackulic CB, Saunders SP, Reid J, Davis R, Zipkin EF (2016) Dynamic N-occupancy models: estimating demographic rates and local abundance from detection–nondetection data. Ecology 97:3300–3307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Royle JA (2004) N-mixture models for estimating population size from spatially replicated counts. Biometrics 60:108–115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Royle JA, Dawson DK, Bates S (2004) Modeling abundance effects in distance sampling. Ecology 85:1591–1597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Royle JA, Chandler RB, Sollmann R, Gardner B (2013) Spatial capture–recapture. Academic Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Schaub M, Royle JA (2014) Estimating true instead of apparent survival using spatial Cormack–Jolly–Seber models. Methods Ecol Evol 5:1316–1326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sólymos P, Lele S, Bayne E (2012) Conditional likelihood approach for analyzing single visit abundance survey data in the presence of zero inflation and detection error. Environmetrics 23:197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sutherland C, Elston D, Lambin X (2014) A demographic, spatially explicit patch occupancy model of metapopulation dynamics and persistence. Ecology 95:3149–3160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sweanor LL, Logan KA, Hornocker MG (2000) Cougar dispersal patterns, metapopulation dynamics, and conservation. Conserv Biol 14:798–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Turchin P (2003) Complex population dynamics: a theoretical/empirical synthesis. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  25. Williams BK, Nichols JD, Conroy MJ (2002) Analysis and management of animal populations. Academic Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Zipkin EF, Thorson JT, See K, Lynch HJ, Grant EHC, Kanno Y, Chandler RB, Letcher BH, Royle JA (2014) Modeling structured population dynamics using data from unmarked individuals. Ecology 95:22–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Zipkin EF, Rossman S, Yackulic CB, Wiens JD, Thorson JT, Davis RJ, Grant EHC (2017) Integrating count and detection–nondetection data to model population dynamics. Ecology 98:1640–1650CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Population Ecology and Springer Japan KK 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation BiologyColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  2. 2.USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research CenterLaurelUSA
  3. 3.Division of Migratory Bird ManagementUS Fish and Wildlife ServiceLaurelUSA

Personalised recommendations