Importance of Accounting for Detection Heterogeneity When Estimating Abundance: the Case of French Wolves

Abstract:  Assessing conservation strategies requires reliable estimates of abundance. Because detecting all individuals is most often impossible in free‐ranging populations, estimation procedures have to account for a <1 detection probability. Capture–recapture methods allow biologists to cope with this issue of detectability. Nevertheless, capture–recapture models for open populations are built on the assumption that all individuals share the same detection probability, although detection heterogeneity among individuals has led to underestimating abundance of closed populations. We developed multievent capture–recapture models for an open population and proposed an associated estimator of population size that both account for individual detection heterogeneity (IDH). We considered a two‐class mixture model with weakly and highly detectable individuals to account for IDH. In a noninvasive capture–recapture study of wolves we based on genotypes identified in feces and hairs, we found a large underestimation of population size (27% on average) occurred when IDH was ignored.

[1]  Roger Pradel,et al.  Capture–recapture models with heterogeneity to study survival senescence in the wild , 2010 .

[2]  Roger Pradel,et al.  U‐CARE: Utilities for performing goodness of fit tests and manipulating CApture–REcapture data , 2009 .

[3]  Luigi Boitani,et al.  Wolf survival and population trend using non-invasive capture-recapture techniques in the Western Alps , 2009 .

[4]  M. Conroy,et al.  Modeling demographic processes in marked populations , 2009 .

[5]  Roger Pradel,et al.  The Stakes of Capture–Recapture Models with State Uncertainty , 2009 .

[6]  Roger Pradel,et al.  Program E-Surge: A Software Application for Fitting Multievent Models , 2009 .

[7]  Roger Pradel,et al.  Is heterogeneity of catchability in capture–recapture studies a mere sampling artifact or a biologically relevant feature of the population? , 2008, Population Ecology.

[8]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Quality indexes to assess the reliability of genotypes in studies using noninvasive sampling and multiple‐tube approach , 2006 .

[9]  OLIVIER DEVINEAU,et al.  Planning Capture–Recapture Studies: Straightforward Precision, Bias, and Power Calculations , 2006 .

[10]  L. Waits,et al.  NONINVASIVE GENETIC SAMPLING TOOLS FOR WILDLIFE BIOLOGISTS: A REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACCURATE DATA COLLECTION , 2005 .

[11]  Roger Pradel,et al.  Multievent: An Extension of Multistate Capture–Recapture Models to Uncertain States , 2005, Biometrics.

[12]  Richard M. Huggins,et al.  An examination of the effect of heterogeneity on the estimation of population size using capture-recapture data , 2005 .

[13]  J. Linnell,et al.  Report on the conservation status and threats for wolf (Canis lupus) in Europe , 2005 .

[14]  PAUL M. LUKACS,et al.  RESEARCH NOTES: ESTIMATING POPULATION SIZE FROM DNA-BASED CLOSED CAPTURE–RECAPTURE DATA INCORPORATING GENOTYPING ERROR , 2005 .

[15]  E. Bangs,et al.  Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation , 2004 .

[16]  W. Link.  Nonidentifiability of Population Size from Capture‐Recapture Data with Heterogeneous Detection Probabilities , 2003, Biometrics.

[17]  J. Norris,et al.  Capture-Recapture Models with Heterogeneity : I . Cormack-Jolly-Seber Model , 2003 .

[18]  K. U. Karanth,et al.  Human‐Carnivore Conflict and Perspectives on Carnivore Management Worldwide , 2003 .

[19]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Model selection and multimodel inference : a practical information-theoretic approach , 2003 .

[20]  Pierre Taberlet,et al.  Long‐distance wolf recolonization of France and Switzerland inferred from non‐invasive genetic sampling over a period of 10 years , 2003 .

[21]  M. Conroy,et al.  Analysis and Management of Animal Populations , 2002 .

[22]  L. Boitani,et al.  Noninvasive molecular tracking of colonizing wolf (Canis lupus) packs in the western Italian Alps , 2002, Molecular ecology.

[23]  Nathaniel Valière.  Amélioration et optimisation des méthodes non-invasives et des marqueurs microsatellites en biologie des populations et de la conservation , 2002 .

[24]  Steven C. Amstrup,et al.  Estimation of population size using open capture-recapture models , 2001 .

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

[26]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Non-invasive genetic sampling and individual identification , 1999 .

[27]  Anthony C. Davison,et al.  Bootstrap Methods and Their Application , 1998 .

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

[29]  L. Mech.  The challenge and opportunity of recovering wolf populations , 1995 .

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

[31]  V. Urios,et al.  Use of faeces for scent marking in Iberian wolves (Canis lupus) , 1994 .

[32]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Modeling Survival and Testing Biological Hypotheses Using Marked Animals: A Unified Approach with Case Studies , 1992 .

[33]  R. Huggins.  Some practical aspects of a conditional likelihood approach to capture experiments , 1991 .

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

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

[36]  A. Carothers,et al.  The Effects of Unequal Catchability on Jolly-Seber Estimates , 1973 .