Environmental and Ecological Statistics

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 197–209 | Cite as

A closure test for time-specific capture-recapture data

  • Thomas R. Stanley
  • Kenneth P. Burnham
Article

Abstract

The assumption of demographic closure in the analysis of capture-recapture data under closed-population models is of fundamental importance. Yet, little progress has been made in the development of omnibus tests of the closure assumption. We present a closure test for time-specific data that, in principle, tests the null hypothesis of closed-population model Mt against the open-population Jolly-Seber model as a specific alternative. This test is chi-square, and can be decomposed into informative components that can be interpreted to determine the nature of closure violations. The test is most sensitive to permanent emigration and least sensitive to temporary emigration, and is of intermediate sensitivity to permanent or temporary immigration. This test is a versatile tool for testing the assumption of demographic closure in the analysis of capture-recapture data.

Darroch's model Jolly-Seber model model Mt population estimation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Burnham, K.P. (1997) Distributional results for special cases of the Jolly-Seber model. Communications in Statistics, 26, 1395-409.Google Scholar
  2. Burnham, K.P., Anderson, D.R., White, G.C., Brownie, C., and Pollock, K.H. (1987) Design and analysis methods for fish survival experiments based on release-recapture. American Fisheries Society Monograph, 5.Google Scholar
  3. Darroch, J.N. (1958) The multiple-recapture census: I. Estimation of a closed population. Biometrika, 45, 343-59.Google Scholar
  4. Jolly, G.M. (1965) Explicit estimates from capture-recapture data with both death and immigration-stochastic model. Biometrika, 52, 225-47.Google Scholar
  5. Jolly, G.M. (1982) Mark-recapture models with parameters constant in time. Biometrics, 38, 301-21.Google Scholar
  6. Lebreton, J.-D., Burnham, K.P., Clobert, J., and Anderson, D.R. (1992) Modeling survival and testing biological hypotheses using marked animals: a unified approach with case studies. Ecological Monographs, 62, 67-118.Google Scholar
  7. Otis, D.L., Burnham, K.P., White, G.C., and Anderson, D.R. (1978) Statistical inference from capture data on closed populations. Wildlife Monographs, 62.Google Scholar
  8. Pollock, K.H., Solomon, D.L., and Robson, D.S. (1974) Tests for mortality and recruitment in a K-sample tag-recapture experiment. Biometrics, 30, 77-87.Google Scholar
  9. Pollock, K.H., Nichols, J.D., Brownie, C., and Hines, J.E. (1990) Statistical inference for capture-recapture experiments. Wildlife Monographs, 107.Google Scholar
  10. Robson, D.S. and Flick, W.A. (1965) A non-parametric statistical method for culling recruits from a mark-recapture experiment. Biometrics, 21, 936-47.Google Scholar
  11. Robson, D.S. and Regier, H.A. (1968) Estimation of population number and mortality rates. In Methods for Assessment of Fish Production in Fresh Waters, IBP Handbook No. 3, W.E. Ricker (ed), Blackwell Scientific Publications: Oxford. pp. 124-58.Google Scholar
  12. Seber, G.A.F. (1965) A note on the multiple recapture census. Biometrika, 52, 249-59.Google Scholar
  13. Seber, G.A.F. (1982) The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters, Second edition. Macmillan, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Seber, G.A.F. (1992) A review of estimating animal abundance II. International Statistical Reviews, 60, 129-66.Google Scholar
  15. Stanley, T.R. and Burnham, K.P. (1999). A goodness-of-fit test for capture-recapture model M t under closure. Biometrics, 55, 127-38.Google Scholar
  16. White, G.C., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P., and Otis, D.L. (1982) Capture-recapture and removal methods for sampling closed populations, Los Alamos National Laboratory, LA-8787-NERP, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas R. Stanley
    • 1
  • Kenneth P. Burnham
    • 2
  1. 1.U.S. Geological Survey, Midcontinent Ecological Science CenterFort CollinsU.S.A
  2. 2.Colorado Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Colorado State UniversityFort CollinsU.S.A

Personalised recommendations