Spatially Explicit Maximum Likelihood Methods for Capture–Recapture Studies

Live-trapping capture-recapture studies of animal populations with fixed trap locations inevitably have a spatial component: animals close to traps are more likely to be caught than those far away. This is not addressed in conventional closed-population estimates of abundance and without the spatial component, rigorous estimates of density cannot be obtained. We propose new, flexible capture-recapture models that use the capture locations to estimate animal locations and spatially referenced capture probability. The models are likelihood-based and hence allow use of Akaike's information criterion or other likelihood-based methods of model selection. Density is an explicit parameter, and the evaluation of its dependence on spatial or temporal covariates is therefore straightforward. Additional (nonspatial) variation in capture probability may be modeled as in conventional capture-recapture. The method is tested by simulation, using a model in which capture probability depends only on location relative to traps. Point estimators are found to be unbiased and standard error estimators almost unbiased. The method is used to estimate the density of Red-eyed Vireos (Vireo olivaceus) from mist-netting data from the Patuxent Research Refuge, Maryland, U.S.A. Estimates agree well with those from an existing spatially explicit method based on inverse prediction. A variety of additional spatially explicit models are fitted; these include models with temporal stratification, behavioral response, and heterogeneous animal home ranges.

[1]  P. Jupp,et al.  Inference for Poisson and multinomial models for capture-recapture experiments , 1991 .

[2]  S. Pledger Unified Maximum Likelihood Estimates for Closed Capture–Recapture Models Using Mixtures , 2000, Biometrics.

[3]  Kenneth P. Burnham,et al.  Estimation of population size in multiple capture-recapture studies when capture probabilities vary among animals , 1972 .

[4]  R. L. Sandland,et al.  Statistical inference for Poisson and multinomial models for capture-recapture experiments , 1984 .

[5]  Stephen T. Buckland,et al.  Radial-Distance Models for the Line-Transect Method , 1983 .

[6]  E. Klein,et al.  SELECTing the best. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[7]  A Chao,et al.  Estimating population size via sample coverage for closed capture-recapture models. , 1994, Biometrics.

[8]  M. Efford Density estimation in live‐trapping studies , 2004 .

[9]  R. Huggins On the statistical analysis of capture experiments , 1989 .

[10]  J. Andrew Royle,et al.  Mixture Models for Estimating the Size of a Closed Population When Capture Rates Vary among Individuals , 2003, Biometrics.

[11]  M. Efford,et al.  A field test of two methods for density estimation , 2005 .

[12]  D. A. MacLulich A New Technique of Animal Census, with Examples , 1951 .

[13]  W. Heyer,et al.  Estimating Population Size , 1994 .

[14]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations , 1980 .

[15]  C. S. Robbins,et al.  DENSITY: software for analysing capture-recapture data from passive detector arrays , 2004, Animal Biodiversity and Conservation.

[16]  M. Forina,et al.  Multivariate calibration. , 2007, Journal of chromatography. A.

[17]  A. Agresti Simple capture-recapture models permitting unequal catchability and variable sampling effort. , 1994, Biometrics.

[18]  Jon S Horne,et al.  Selecting the best home range model: an information-theoretic approach. , 2006, Ecology.

[19]  J. Norris,et al.  NONPARAMETRIC MLE UNDER TWO CLOSED CAPTURE-RECAPTURE MODELS WITH HETEROGENEITY , 1996 .

[20]  J. Harwood,et al.  Antarctic Seals: Estimation of population sizes , 1993 .

[21]  J. Alho Logistic regression in capture-recapture models. , 1990, Biometrics.

[22]  H. Akaike,et al.  Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle , 1973 .

[23]  James D. Nichols,et al.  A Field Comparison of Nested Grid and Trapping Web Density Estimators , 1987 .