Abstract
Biodiversity monitoring is important to identify conservation needs and test the efficacy of management actions. Variants of “abundance” (N) are among the most widely monitored quantities, e.g., (true) abundance, number of occupied sites (distribution, occupancy) or species richness. We propose a sampling-based view of monitoring that clearly acknowledges two sampling processes involved when monitoring N. First, measurements from the surveyed sample area are generalized to a larger area, hence the importance of a probability sample. Second, even within sampled areas only a sample of units (individuals, occupied sites, species) is counted owing to imperfect detectability p. If p < 1, counts are random variables and their expectation E(n) is related to N via the relationship E(n) = N*p. Whenever p < 1, counts vary even under identical conditions and underestimate N, and patterns in counts confound patterns in N with those in p. In addition, part of the population N may be unavailable for detection, e.g., temporarily outside the sampled quadrat, underground or for another reason not exposed to sampling; hence a more general way of describing a count is E(n) = N*a*p, where a is availability probability and p detection, given availability. We give two examples of monitoring schemes that highlight the importance of explicitly accounting for availability and detectability. In the Swiss reptile Red List update, the widespread and abundant slow worm (Anguis fragilis) was recorded in only 22.1% of all sampled quadrats. Only an analysis that accounted for both availability and detectability gave realistic estimates of the species’ distribution. Among 128 bird species monitored in the Swiss breeding bird survey, detection in occupied 1 km quadrats averaged only 64% and varied tremendously by species (3–99 %); hence observed distributions greatly underestimated range sizes and should not be compared among species. We believe that monitoring design and analyses should properly account for these two sampling processes to enable valid inferences about biodiversity. We argue for a more rigorous approach to both monitoring design and analysis to obtain the best possible information about the state of nature. An explicit recognition of, and proper accounting for, the two sampling processes involved in most monitoring programs will go a long way towards this goal.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Abbreviations
- AIC:
-
Akaike’s Information Criterion
- MHB:
-
Monitoring Häufige Brutvögel.
References
AERC TAC’s Taxonomic Recommendations. 2003. http://www.aerc.eu/aerc_tac.htm.
Anderson, D.R. 2001. The need to get the basics right in wildlife field studies. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 29:1294–1297.
Bart, J., S. Droege, P. Geissler, B. Peterjohn and C.J. Ralph. 2004. Density estimation in wildlife surveys. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 32:1242–1247.
Buckland, S.T., D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, J.L. Laake, D. L. Borchers and L. Thomas. 2001. Introduction to Distance Sampling. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Burnham, K.P. and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information Theoretic Approach. 2 ed. Springer, New York.
Condit, R., B.J. Le Boeuf, P. A. Morris and M. Sylvan. 2007. Estimating population size in asynchronous aggregations: A Bayesian approach and test with elephant seal censuses. Marine Mammal Sci. 23:834–855.
Gelman, A. and J. Hill. 2007. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/hierarchical Models. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Hochachka, W.M. and W. Fiedler. 2008. Trends in trappability and stopover duration can confound interpretations of population trajectories from long-term migration ringing studies. J. Ornithol. 149: 375–391.
Hofer, U., J.-C. Monney and G. Dušej. 2001. I rettili della Svizzera: Distribuzione, habitat, protezione. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel.
Johnson, D.H. 2008. In defense of indices. J. Wildlife Manage. 72: 857–868.
Joseph, L.N., S.A. Field, C. Wilcox and H.P. Possingham. 2006. Presence-absence versus abundance data for monitoring threatened species. Conserv. Biol. 20:1679–1687.
Kendall, W.L. 1999. Robustness of closed capture-recapture methods to violations of the closure assumption. Ecology 80:2517–2525.
Kéry, M. 2002. Inferring the absence of a species – A case study of snakes. J. Wildlife Manage. 66:330–338.
Kéry, M., J.A. Royle, M. Plattner and R.M. Dorazio. in press. Species richness and occupancy estimation in communities subject to temporary emigration. Ecology.
Kéry, M. and H. Schmid. 2006. Estimating species richness: Calibrating a large avian monitoring program. J. App. Ecol. 43:101–110.
Kéry, M., J.H. Spillmann, C. Truong and R. Holderegger. 2006. How biased are estimates of extinction probability in revisitation studies ? J. Ecol. 94:980–986.
Link, W.A. and J. R. Sauer. 2007. Seasonal components of avian population change: Joint analysis of two large-scale monitoring programs. Ecology 88:49–55.
Little, R.J. 2004. To model or not to model ? Competing modes of inference in finite population sampling. J. Amer. Stat. Assoc. 99:546–556.
MacKenzie, D.I. 2005. What are the issues with presence-absence data for wildlife managers? J. Wildlife Manage. 69:849–860.
MacKenzie, D.I. and W.L. Kendall. 2002. How should detection probability be incorporated into estimates of relative abundance? Ecology 83:2387–2393.
MacKenzie, D.I., J.D. Nichols, J.E. Hines, M.G. Knutson and A.D. Franklin. 2003. Estimating site occupancy, colonization and local extinction when a species is detected imperfectly. Ecology 84:2200–2207.
MacKenzie, D.I., J.D. Nichols, G.B. Lachman, S.Droege, J.A. Royle and C.A. Langtimm. 2002. Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probability rates are less than one. Ecology 83: 2248–2255.
MacKenzie, D.I., J.D. Nichols, J.A. Royle, K.H. Pollock, J.E. Hines and L.L. Bailey. 2006. Occupancy Estimation and Modeling: Inferring Patterns and Dynamics of Species Occurrence Elsevier, San Diego.
Marsh, H., and D. F. Sinclair. 1989. Correcting for visibility bias in strip transect aerial surveys of aquatic fauna. J. Wildlife Manage. 53:1017–1024.
Mazerolle, M.J., L.L. Bailey, W.L. Kendall, J.A. Royle, S.J. Converse and J.D. Nichols. 2007. Making great leaps forward: Accounting for detectability in herpetological field studies. J. Herpetol. 41:672–689.
Monney, J.-C. and A. Meyer. 2005. Rote Liste der gefährdeten Reptilien der Schweiz. Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft, Bern, and Koordinationsstelle für Amphibien- und Reptilienschutz in der Schweiz, Bern.
Nichols, J.D., L. Thomas. and P.B. Conn. 2008. Inferences about landbird abundance from count data: recent advances and future directions. Environmental and Ecological Statistics , in press.
Pollock, K.H., H. Marsh, L.L. Bailey, G.L. Farnsworth, T.R. Simons and M.W. Alldredge. 2004. Separating components of detection probability in abundance estimation: An overview with diverse examples. In: W.L. Thompson (ed.), Sampling Rare or Elusive Species. Island Press, Washington, USA. pp. 43–58.
Reading, C.J. 1997. A proposed standard method for surveying reptiles on dry lowland heath. J. App. Ecol. 34:1057–1069.
Royle, J.A. 2006. Site occupancy models with heterogeneous detection probabilities. Biometrics 62:97–102.
Royle, J.A. and R. M. Dorazio. 2006. Hierarchical models of animal abundance and occurrence. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat. 11:249–263.
Royle, J.A. and R. M. Dorazio. 2008. Hierarchical Modeling and Inference in Ecology. Academic Press, Amsterdam.
Royle, J.A. and M. Kéry. 2007. A Bayesian state-space formulation of dynamic occupancy models. Ecology 88:1813–1823.
Royle, J.A., M. Kéry, R. Gautier and H. Schmid. 2007. Hierarchical spatial models of abundance and occurrence from imperfect survey data. Ecol. Monogr. 77:465–481.
Royle, J.A. and W.A. Link. 2006. Generalized occupancy models allowing false positive and false negative errors. Ecology 87:835–841.
Schmid, H., N. Zbinden V. and Keller. 2004. Überwachung der Bestandsentwicklung häufiger Brutvögel in der Schweiz. Swiss Ornithological Institute, Sempach, Switzerland.
Schmidt, B.R. 2004. Declining amphibian populations: The pitfalls of count data in the study of diversity, distributions, dynamics, and demography. Herpetol. J. 14:167–174.
Schmidt, B.R. 2005. Monitoring the distribution of pond-breeding amphibians when species are detected imperfectly. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 15:681–692.
Spiegelhalter, D., A. Thomas and N.G. Best. 2003. WinBUGS User Manual, Version 1.4., MCR Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge.
Thompson, S.K. 2002. Sampling. Wiley, New York.
Thompson, W.L. 2004. Sampling Rare and Elusive Species. Island Press, Washington.
Weber, D., U. Hintermann and A. Zangger. 2004. Scale and trends in species richness: considerations for monitoring biological diversity for political purposes. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 13:97–104.
Williams, B.K., J.D. Nichols and M.J. Conroy. 2002. Analysis and Management of Animal Populations. Academic Press, San Diego.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Kéry, M., Schmidt, B.R. Imperfect detection and its consequences for monitoring for conservation. COMMUNITY ECOLOGY 9, 207–216 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1556/ComEc.9.2008.2.10
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/ComEc.9.2008.2.10
Keywords
- Abundance
- Availability
- Biodiversity
- Detectability
- Distribution
- Inventory
- Monitoring
- Occupancy
- Sampling
- Survey