Extending the Robust Design for DNA-Based Capture–Recapture Data Incorporating Genotyping Error and Laboratory Data

  • Paul M. Lukacs
  • Kenneth P. Burnham
  • Brian P. Dreher
  • Kim T. Scribner
  • Scott R. Winterstein

Abstract

For many species, non-invasive sampling of feathers, hair, feces or other tissue has the potential to be very useful and in some cases is already widely used to answer ecological questions. These samples are genotyped and the genotypes are used to identify individuals. There is some level of uncertainty when identifying individuals from genotyping results. We present an extension to the robust design capture–recapture model that allows for the estimation of genotyping error rate and properly estimates population size, survival, temporary emigration, and capture probability in the face of genotyping error. The model uses information contained in the secondary encounter occasions to estimate genotyping error which would otherwise be impossible for an open-population model with a robust design component. We further extend the model to allow estimation of the probability of correctly genotyping a sample from laboratory data. We demonstrate that with an additional data source for genotyping error, parameters are more precisely estimated by allowing some genotyping error and a larger sample size than by culling samples to eliminate the potential for errors in genotypes and reducing model complexity. We use noninvasive and hunter collected data from black bears in Michigan as an example.

Keywords

Abundance Capture–recapture Microsatellites Non-invasive sampling Tag misread 

References

  1. Boulanger J, White GC, McLellen BN, Woods J, Proctor M, Himmer S (2003) A meta-analysis of grizzly bear DNA mark-recapture projects in British Columbia, Canada. Ursus 13:137–152.Google Scholar
  2. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference, second edition. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Creel S, Spong G, Sands JL, Rotella J, Zeigle J, Joe L, Murphy KM, Smith D (2003) Population size estimation in Yellowstone wolves with error-prone noninvasive microsatellite genotypes. Molecular Ecology 12:2003–2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dreher BP, Winterstein SR, Scribner KT, Lukacs PM, Etter DR, Rosa GJM, Lopez VA, Libants S, Filcek KB (2007) Non-invasive estimation of black bear abundance in Michigan incorporating genotyping errors and harvested bears. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2689–2693.Google Scholar
  5. Kendall WL, Nichols JD, Hines JE (1997) Estimating temporary emigration using capture–recapture data with Pollock’s robust design. Ecology 78:563–578.Google Scholar
  6. Lukacs PM, Burnham KP (2005a) Review of capture–recapture methods applicable to noninvasive genetic sampling. Molecular Ecology 14:3909–3919.Google Scholar
  7. Lukacs PM, Burnham KP (2005b) Estimating population size from DNA based capture– recapture data incorporating genotyping error. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:396–403.Google Scholar
  8. McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized linear models, second edition. Champman and Hall/CRC, London.Google Scholar
  9. McKelvey KS, Schwartz MK (2004a) Genetic errors associated with population estimation using non-invasive molecular tagging: problems and new solutions. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:439–448.Google Scholar
  10. McKelvey KS, Schwartz MK (2004b) Providing reliable and accurate genetic capture–mark–recapture estimates in a cost-effective way. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:453–456.Google Scholar
  11. Otis DL, Burnham KP, White GC, Anderson DR (1978) Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife Monographs 62.Google Scholar
  12. Paetkau D (2003) An empirical exploration of data quality in DNA-based population inventories. Molecular Ecology 12:1375–1387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Paetkau D (2004) The optimal number of markers in genetic capture–mark–recapture studies. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:449–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pollock KH (1982) A capture–recapture design robust to unequal probability of capture. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:752–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schwarz CJ, Stobo WT (1997) Estimating temporary migration using the robust design. Biometrics 53:178–194.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. SAS Institute Inc. (2002) SAS version 9.0. Cary, North Carolina, USA.Google Scholar
  17. White GC, Burnham KP (1999) Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46:S120–S139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Woods JG, Paetkau D, Lewis D, McLellan BN, Proctor M, Strobeck C (1999) Genetic tagging of free-ranging black and brown bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:616–627.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul M. Lukacs
    • 1
  • Kenneth P. Burnham
  • Brian P. Dreher
  • Kim T. Scribner
  • Scott R. Winterstein
  1. 1.Colorado Division of WildlifeFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations