Abstract
The age structure of harvests has long been an important source of information in fisheries stock assessments, especially when augmented with data from catch-effort or research vessel surveys. Age-at-harvest data are also collected for many terrestrial species, a fact which has recently prompted several authors to propose models for analyzing wildlife age-at-harvest data, with the object of estimating abundance, survival, harvest parameters, and recruitment. Since analysis with age-at-harvest data alone often leads to problems with parameter identification, these authors suggested that data from studies of marked animals could be used to inform the estimation of survival and recovery rates. However, little work has been done to examine estimator performance, particularly when model assumptions are violated, as when aging errors occur or when mark-recovery and age-at-harvest data are non-independent. Similarly, we know of no studies that have investigated the efficacy of posterior simulation when Bayesian estimation methods are used for such problems. In this paper, we employ a suite of simulation modules to quantify estimator performance under a number of hypothetical biological scenarios. When all assumptions are satisfied, we show that bias is typically of small magnitude, coefficient of variation is small, and that credible interval coverage is satisfactory. Estimators were robust to errors in age determination but precision had the potential to be severely overestimated when data from marked animals were also included in age-at-harvest summaries. Nevertheless, joint analysis of age-at-harvest and mark-recovery data may represent a viable monitoring strategy for many terrestrial species.
An erratum to this chapter is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-78151-8_55
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Beck TDI (1991) Black bears in west-central Colorado, Tech. Report Tech. Publ. 39 DOW-R-T-39-91, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Besbeas P, Freeman SN, Morgan BJT, Catchpole EA (2002) Integrating mark-recapture-recovery and census data to estimate animal abundance and demographic parameters. Biometrics 58:540–547.
Box GEP, Draper NR (1987) Empirical Model-Bulding and Response Surfaces, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA.
Brooks SP (1999) Bayesian analysis of animal abundance data via MCMC, Bayesian Statistics 6 (Bernardo JM, Berger JO, Dawid AP, and Smith AFM, eds), Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 723–731.
Brownie C, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Robson DS (1985) Statistical inference from band recovery data: A handbook, US Fish and Wildlife Resource Publication (156), Washington, DC, USA.
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd Edition, Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.
Caswell H (2001) Matrix Population Models. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, USA.
Conn PB (2007) Bayesian analysis of age-at-harvest data, with focus on wildlife monitoring programs, Ph.D. thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Conn PB, Diefenbach DR (2007) Adjusting age and stage distributions for misclassification errors. Ecology 88:1977–1983.
Conn PB, Laake JL, Diefenbach DR, White GC, Ternent MA (in press) Bayesian demographic analysis of wildlife age-at-harvest data. Biometrics.
Costello CM, Inman KH, Jones DE, Inman RM, Thompson BC, Quigley HB (2004) Reliability of the cementum annuli technique for estimating age of black bears in New Mexico. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:169–176.
Deriso RB, II Quinn TJ, Neal PR (1985) Catch-age analysis with auxiliary information. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42:815–824.
Dupont WD (1983) A stochastic catch-effort method for estimating animal abundance. Biometrics 39:1021–1033.
Fournier D, Archibald CP (1982) A general theory for analyzing catch at age data. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 39:1195–1207.
Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB (2004) Bayesian Data Analysis, 2nd Edition, Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Gove NE, Skalski JR, Zager P, Townsend RL (2002) Statistical models for population reconstruction using age-at-harvest data. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:310–320.
Harshyne WA, Diefenbach DR, Alt GL, Matson GM (1998) Analysis of error from cementum-annuli age estimates of known-age Pennsylvania black bears. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1281–1291.
Laake JL (1992) Catch-effort models and their application to elk in Colorado, PhD thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Lebreton JD, Burnham KP, Clobert J, Anderson DR (1992) Modeling survival and testing biological hypotheses using marked animals: A unified approach with case studies. Ecological Monographs 62:67–118.
Lewy P, Nielson A (2003) Modelling stochastic fish stock dynamics using Markov chain Monte Carlo. ICES Journal of Marine Science 60:743–752.
Link WA, Royle JA, and Hatfield JS (2003) Demographic analysis from summaries of an age-structured population. Biometrics 59:778–785.
Maunder MN (2001) Integrated tagging and catch-at-age analysis (ITCAAN), Spatial Processes and the Management of Fish Populations (Kruse GH, Bez N, Booth A, Dorn MW, S. Hills, Lipcius RN, Pelletier D, Roy C, Smith SJ, Witherell D eds), Alaska Sea Grant College Program Report No. AK-SG-01-02, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
McAllister MK, Ianelli JN (1997) Bayesian stock assessment using catch-age data and the sampling-resampling importance algorithm. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:284–300.
McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized Linear Models, Chapman and Hall, New York, USA.
Megrey BA (1989) Review and comparison of age-structured stock assessment models from theoretical and applied points of view. American Fisheries Science Symposium 6:8–48.
Meyer R, Millar RB (1999) Bayesian stock assessment using a state-space implementation of the delay difference model. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:37–52.
Newman KB, Buckland ST, Lindley ST, Thomas L, Fernà ndez C (2006) Hidden process models for animal population dynamics. Ecological Applications 16:74–86.
R Development Core Team (2008) R:A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org.
Reeves SA (2003) A simulation study of the implications of age-reading errors for stock assessment and management advice. ICES Journal of Marine Science 60:314–328.
Seber GAF (1982) The Estimation of Animal Abundance and Related Parameters, 2nd edition, Blackburn Press, Caldwell, NJ, USA.
Skalski JR, Ryding KE, Millspaugh JJ (2005) Wildlife demography: analysis of sex, age, and count data, Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA.
Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, van der Linde A (2002) Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 64:583–639.
Virtala M, Kuikka S, Arjas E (1998) Stochastic virtual population analysis. ICES Journal of Marine Science 55:892–904.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Conn, P.B., White, G.C., Laake, J.L. (2009). Simulation Performance of Bayesian Estimators of Abundance Employing Age-at-Harvest and Mark-Recovery Data. In: Thomson, D.L., Cooch, E.G., Conroy, M.J. (eds) Modeling Demographic Processes In Marked Populations. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, vol 3. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-78151-8_44
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-78151-8_44
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-78150-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-78151-8
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)