Sources of Measurement Error, Misclassification Error, and Bias in Auditory Avian Point Count Data

  • Theodore R. Simons
  • Kenneth H. Pollock
  • John M. Wettroth
  • Mathew W. Alldredge
  • Krishna Pacifici
  • Jerome Brewster
Part of the Environmental and Ecological Statistics book series (ENES, volume 3)


Avian point counts vary over space and time due to actual differences in abundance, differences in detection probabilities among counts, and differences associated with measurement and misclassification errors. However, despite the substantial time, effort, and money expended counting birds in ecological research and monitoring, the validity of common survey methods remains largely untested, and there is still considerable disagreement over the importance of estimating detection probabilities associated with individual counts. Most practitioners assume that current methods for estimating detection probability are accurate, and that observer training obviates the need to account for measurement and misclassification errors in point count data. Our approach combines empirical data from field studies with field experiments using a system for simulating avian census conditions when most birds are identified by sound. Our objectives are to: identify the factors that influence detection probability on auditory point counts, quantify the bias and precision of current sampling methods, and find new applications of sampling theory and methodologies that produce practical improvements in the quality of bird census data.

We have found that factors affecting detection probabilities on auditory counts, such as ambient noise, can cause substantial biases in count data. Distance sampling data are subject to substantial measurement error due to the difficulty of estimating the distance to a sound source when visual cues are lacking. Misclassification errors are also inherent in time of detection methods due to the difficulty of accurately identifying and localizing sounds during a count. Factors affecting detection probability, measurement errors, and misclassification errors are important but often ignored components of the uncertainty associated with point-count-based abundance estimates.


Detection Probability Ambient Noise Point Count Misclassification Error Breeding Bird Survey 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alldredge MW, Pollock KH, Simons TR (2006) Estimating detection probabilities from multiple observer point counts. Auk 123:1172–1182.Google Scholar
  2. Alldredge MW, Pollock KH, Simons TR, Collazo J, Shriner SA (2007a) Time of detection method for estimating abundance from point count surveys. Auk 124:653–664.Google Scholar
  3. Alldredge MW, Simons TR, Pollock KH (2007b) Factors affecting aural detections of songbirds. Ecological Applications 17:948–955.Google Scholar
  4. Alldredge MW, Simons TR, Pollock KH (2007c) An experimental evaluation of distance measurement error in avian point count surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2759–2766.Google Scholar
  5. Alldredge MW, Simons TR, Pollock KH, Pacifici K (2007d) A field evaluation of the time-of-detection method to estimate population size and density for aural avian point counts. Avian Conservation and Ecology -- Écologie et conservation des oiseaux 2(2):13.
  6. Alldredge MW, Pacifici K, Simons TR, Pollock KH (In press) A novel field evaluation of the effectiveness of distance sampling and double independent observer methods to estimate aural avian detection probabilities. Journal of Applied Ecology.Google Scholar
  7. Bart J (2005) Monitoring the abundance of bird populations. AUK 122:15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bart J, Earnst S (2002) Double sampling to estimate density and population trends in birds. Auk 119:36–45.Google Scholar
  9. Best LB (1981) Seasonal changes in detection of individual bird species. Studies in Avian Biology 6:252–261.Google Scholar
  10. Brewster JP (2007) Spatial and temporal variation in the singing rates of two forest songbirds, the Ovenbird and Black-throated Blue Warbler; Implications for aural counts of songbirds. MS Thesis. Department of Zoology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
  11. Buckland ST (2006) Point-transect surveys for songbirds: Robust methodologies. Auk 123:345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL, Borchers DL, Thomas L (2001) Introduction to distance sampling: Estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Butler C (2003) The disproportionate effect of global warming on the arrival dates of short-distance migratory birds in North America. IBIS 145:484–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cuthill I, Hindmarsh A (1985) Increase in Starling song activity with removal of mate. Animal Behavior 33:326–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeJong MJ, Emlen JT (1985) The shape of the auditory detection function and its implication for songbird censusing. Journal of Field Ornithology 56:213–223.Google Scholar
  16. Diehl B (1981) Bird populations consist of individuals differing in many respects. Studies in Avian Biology 6:225–229.Google Scholar
  17. Downes CM (2004) Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada. Results of the 2004 Questionnaire for Canadian Participants in the Breeding Bird Survey.
  18. Emlen JT, DeJong MJ (1981) The application of song detection threshold distance to census operations. Studies in Avian Biology 6:346–352.Google Scholar
  19. Emlen JT, DeJong MJ (1992) Counting birds: The problem of variable hearing abilities. Journal of Field Ornithology 63:26–31.Google Scholar
  20. Farnsworth GL, Pollock KH, Nichols JD, Simons TR, Hines JE, Sauer JR (2002) A removal model for estimating detection probabilities from point-count surveys. Auk 119:414–425.Google Scholar
  21. Gibbs JP, Wenny DG (1993) Song output as a population estimator: Effect of male pairing status. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:316–322.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson LS (1983) Effect of mate loss on song performance in the Plain Titmouse. Condor 85: 378–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kendall WL, Peterjohn BG, Sauer JR (1996) First-time observer effects in the North American Breeding Bird Survey. Auk 113:823–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kepler CB, Scott JM (1981) Reducing bird count variability by training observers. Studies in Avian Biology 6:366–371.Google Scholar
  25. Kery M, Royle JA, Schmid H (2005) Modeling avian abundance from replicated counts using binomial mixture models. Ecological Applications 15:1450–1461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kissling ML, Garton EO (2006) Estimating detection probability and density from point-count surveys: a combination of distance and double-observer sampling. Auk 123:735–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krebs JR, Avery M, Cowie RJ (1980) Effect of removal of mate on the singing behavior of Great Tits. Animal Behavior 29:635–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lichstein JW, Simons TR, Franzreb KE (2002) Landscape effects on breeding songbird abundance in managed forests. Ecological Applications 12:836–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marsh H, Sinclair DF (1989) Correcting for visibility bias in strip transect aerial surveys of aquatic fauna. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:1017–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mayfield HF (1981) Problems in estimating population size through counts of singing males. Studies in Avian Biology 6:220–224.Google Scholar
  31. McShea WJ, Rappole JH (1997) Variable song rates in three species of passerines and implications for estimating bird population. Journal of Field Ornithology 68:367–375.Google Scholar
  32. Nichols JD, Hines JE, Sauer JR, Fallon FW, Fallon JE, Heglund PJ (2000) A double-observer approach for estimating detection probability and abundance from point counts. Auk 117: 393–408.Google Scholar
  33. Nichols JD, Thomas L, Conn PB (2008) Inferences about landbird abundance from count data: Recent advances and future directions. Journal of Ecological and Environmental Statistics 3:201–236.Google Scholar
  34. Pacific K, Simons TR, Pollock KH (In press) Effects of vegetation and background noise on the detection process in auditory avian point count surveys. The Auk 125.Google Scholar
  35. Norvell RE, Howe FP, Parrish JR (2003) A seven-year comparison of relative abundance and distance sampling methods. Auk 120:1013–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pollock KH, Marsh H, Bailey LL, Farnsworth GL, Simons TR, Alldredge MW (2004) Separating components of detection probability in abundance estimation: An overview with diverse examples. Pages 43–58 in Sampling Rare and Elusive Species: Concepts, Designs and Techniques for Estimating Population Parameters (W. L. Thompson ed.). Island Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  37. Pollock KH, Marsh HD, Lawler IR, Alldredge MW (2006) Estimating animal abundance in heterogeneous environments: An application to aerial surveys for dugongs. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pollock KH, Nichols JD, Simons TR, Farnsworth GL, Bailey LL, Sauer JR (2002) Large scale wildlife monitoring studies: Statistical methods for design and analysis. Environmetrics 13:105–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ralph CJ (1981) An investigation of the effects of seasonal activity levels on avian censusing. Studies in Avian Biology 6:265–270.Google Scholar
  40. Ralph JC, Droege S, Sauer JR (1995) Managing and monitoring birds using point counts: standards and applications. Pages 161–168 in Monitoring bird populations by point counts (Ralph JC, Sauer JR, Droege S Eds.). U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report PSWGTR-149.Google Scholar
  41. Robbins CS (1981a) Effect of time of day on bird activity. Studies in Avian Biology 6:275–286.Google Scholar
  42. Robbins CS (1981b) Bird activity levels related to weather. Studies in Avian Biology 6:301–310.Google Scholar
  43. Rosenstock SS, Anderson DR, Giesen KM, Leukering T, Carter MF (2002) Landbird counting techniques: Current practices and an alternative. Auk 119:46–53.Google Scholar
  44. Royle JA, Nichols JD (2003) Estimating abundance from repeated presence-absence data or point counts. Ecology 84:777–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sauer JR, Barker RJ, Geissler PH (1994) Statistical aspects of modeling population change from population size data. Pages 451–466 in Wildlife Toxicology and Population Modeling: Integrated Studies of Agroecosystems (R. J. Kendall and Lacher TE, Jr., eds.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  46. Sauer JR, Hines JE, Fallon J (2005) The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966–2004. Version 2005.2, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD
  47. Schieck J (1997) Biased detection of bird vocalizations affects comparisons of bird abundance among forested habitats. The Condor 99:179–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Scott JM, Ramsey FL, Kepler CB (1981) Distance estimation as a variable in estimating bird numbers from vocalizations. Studies in Avian Biology 6:334–340.Google Scholar
  49. Sheilds WM (1977) The effect of time of day of avian census results. Auk 94:380–383.Google Scholar
  50. Shriner SA (2001) Distribution of breeding birds in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Zoology, North Caroline State University, Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
  51. Simons TR, Shriner SA, Farnsworth GL (2006) Comparison of breeding bird and vegetation communities in primary and secondary forests of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Biological Conservation 129:302–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Simons TR, Alldredge MW, Pollock KH, Wettroth JM (2007) Experimental analysis of the auditory detection process on avian point counts. The Auk 124:986–999.Google Scholar
  53. Skirvin AA (1981) Effects of time of day and time of season on the number of observations and density estimates of breeding birds. Studies in Avian Biology 6:271–274.Google Scholar
  54. Thomas L, Laake JL, Derry JF, Buckland ST, Borchers DL, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Strindberg S, Hedley SL, Burt ML, Marques FFC, Pollard JH, Fewster RM (1998) Distance 3.5. Release 6. Research Unit for Wildlife Population Assessment, University of St.Andrews, UK. Available:
  55. Thompson WL (2002) Towards reliable bird surveys: Accounting for individuals present but not detected. Auk 119:18–25.Google Scholar
  56. Williams BK, Nichols JD, Conroy MJ (2002) Analysis and management of animal populations. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  57. Wilson DM, Bart J (1985) Reliability of singing bird surveys: Effects of song phenology during the breeding season. Condor 87:69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yoccoz NG, Nichols JD, Boulinier T (2001) Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16:446–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Theodore R. Simons
    • 1
  • Kenneth H. Pollock
  • John M. Wettroth
  • Mathew W. Alldredge
  • Krishna Pacifici
  • Jerome Brewster
  1. 1.USGS, NC Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of ZoologyNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations