A hierarchical model combining distance sampling and time removal to estimate detection probability during avian point counts

ABSTRACT Imperfect detection during animal surveys biases estimates of abundance and can lead to improper conclusions regarding distribution and population trends. Farnsworth et al. (2005) developed a combined distance-sampling and time-removal model for point-transect surveys that addresses both availability (the probability that an animal is available for detection; e.g., that a bird sings) and perceptibility (the probability that an observer detects an animal, given that it is available for detection). We developed a hierarchical extension of the combined model that provides an integrated analysis framework for a collection of survey points at which both distance from the observer and time of initial detection are recorded. Implemented in a Bayesian framework, this extension facilitates evaluating covariates on abundance and detection probability, incorporating excess zero counts (i.e. zero-inflation), accounting for spatial autocorrelation, and estimating population density. Species-specific characteristics, such as behavioral displays and territorial dispersion, may lead to different patterns of availability and perceptibility, which may, in turn, influence the performance of such hierarchical models. Therefore, we first test our proposed model using simulated data under different scenarios of availability and perceptibility. We then illustrate its performance with empirical point-transect data for a songbird that consistently produces loud, frequent, primarily auditory signals, the Golden-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla); and for 2 ptarmigan species (Lagopus spp.) that produce more intermittent, subtle, and primarily visual cues. Data were collected by multiple observers along point transects across a broad landscape in southwest Alaska, so we evaluated point-level covariates on perceptibility (observer and habitat), availability (date within season and time of day), and abundance (habitat, elevation, and slope), and included a nested point-within-transect and park-level effect. Our results suggest that this model can provide insight into the detection process during avian surveys and reduce bias in estimates of relative abundance but is best applied to surveys of species with greater availability (e.g., breeding songbirds).

[1]  Douglas H. Johnson.  In Defense of Indices: The Case of Bird Surveys , 2008 .

[2]  Ché Elkin,et al.  Modeling abundance using N-mixture models: the importance of considering ecological mechanisms. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[3]  Jason M. Evans,et al.  Does accounting for imperfect detection improve species distribution models , 2011 .

[4]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Advanced distance sampling , 2004 .

[5]  Xiao-Li Meng,et al.  POSTERIOR PREDICTIVE ASSESSMENT OF MODEL FITNESS VIA REALIZED DISCREPANCIES , 1996 .

[6]  John R. Sauer,et al.  Monitoring Bird Populations by Point Counts , 2012 .

[7]  L. Madsen,et al.  Models for Estimating Abundance from Repeated Counts of an Open Metapopulation , 2011, Biometrics.

[8]  J. Schmidt,et al.  Accounting for incomplete detection: What are we estimating and how might it affect long-term passerine monitoring programs? , 2013 .

[9]  Péter Sólymos,et al.  Calibrating indices of avian density from non‐standardized survey data: making the most of a messy situation , 2013 .

[10]  Kenneth H. Pollock,et al.  Sources of Measurement Error, Misclassification Error, and Bias in Auditory Avian Point Count Data , 2009 .

[11]  Frank P. Howe,et al.  A SEVEN-YEAR COMPARISON OF RELATIVE-ABUNDANCE AND DISTANCE-SAMPLING METHODS , 2003 .

[12]  K. Burnham,et al.  Estimation of the size of a closed population when capture probabilities vary among animals , 1978 .

[13]  William A. Link,et al.  Analysis of the North American Breeding Bird Survey Using Hierarchical Models , 2011 .

[14]  D. Forsyth,et al.  Modeling sighting heterogeneity and abundance in spatially replicated multiple‐observer surveys , 2014 .

[15]  J. Andrew Royle,et al.  MODELING ABUNDANCE EFFECTS IN DISTANCE SAMPLING , 2004 .

[16]  Brina Kessel,et al.  Status and distribution of Alaska birds , 1978 .

[17]  Péter Sólymos,et al.  Using Binomial Distance-Sampling Models to Estimate the Effective Detection Radius of Point-Count Surveys Across Boreal Canada , 2012 .

[18]  W. Link.  Individual heterogeneity and identifiability in capture-recapture models , 2004 .

[19]  Len Thomas,et al.  IMPROVING ESTIMATES OF BIRD DENSITY USING MULTIPLE- COVARIATE DISTANCE SAMPLING , 2007 .

[20]  C. Handel,et al.  Inventory of montane-nesting birds in Katmai and Lake Clark national parks and preserves , 2007 .

[21]  D. Dawson,et al.  Effect of Distance-Related Heterogeneity on Population Size Estimates from Point Counts , 2009 .

[22]  G. White,et al.  Breeding in high-elevation habitat results in shift to slower life-history strategy within a single species. , 2009, The Journal of animal ecology.

[23]  S. Matsuoka,et al.  Estimation of Avian Population Sizes and Species Richness Across a Boreal Landscape in Alaska , 2009 .

[24]  P. Legendre.  Spatial Autocorrelation: Trouble or New Paradigm? , 1993 .

[25]  Calvin Zippin,et al.  The Removal Method of Population Estimation , 1958 .

[26]  J. Andrew Royle,et al.  HIERARCHICAL SPATIAL MODELS OF ABUNDANCE AND OCCURRENCE FROM IMPERFECT SURVEY DATA , 2007 .

[27]  J. Andrew Royle,et al.  Explaining Local-Scale Species Distributions: Relative Contributions of Spatial Autocorrelation and Landscape Heterogeneity for an Avian Assemblage , 2013, PloS one.

[28]  E. O. Garton,et al.  ESTIMATING DETECTION PROBABILITY AND DENSITY FROM POINT-COUNT SURVEYS: A COMBINATION OF DISTANCE AND DOUBLE-OBSERVER SAMPLING , 2006 .

[29]  J. Nichols,et al.  A DOUBLE-OBSERVER APPROACH FOR ESTIMATING DETECTION PROBABILITY AND ABUNDANCE FROM POINT COUNTS , 2000 .

[30]  Marc Kéry,et al.  Monitoring programs need to take into account imperfect species detectability , 2004 .

[31]  Aaron M Ellison,et al.  Observer bias and the detection of low-density populations. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[32]  K. Pollock,et al.  SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL VARIATION IN DETECTION PROBABILITY OF PLETHODON SALAMANDERS USING THE ROBUST CAPTURE–RECAPTURE DESIGN , 2004 .

[33]  Kenneth H. Pollock,et al.  Statistical approaches to the analysis of point count data: a little extra information can go a long way , 2005 .

[34]  Stephen T. Buckland,et al.  Spatial models for line transect sampling , 2004 .

[35]  W. Thompson,et al.  TOWARDS RELIABLE BIRD SURVEYS: ACCOUNTING FOR INDIVIDUALS PRESENT BUT NOT DETECTED , 2002 .

[36]  Michael J. Oimoen,et al.  The National Elevation Dataset , 2002 .

[37]  Kenneth H. Pollock,et al.  Visibility bias in aerial surveys a review of estimation procedures , 1987 .

[38]  Wayne E. Thogmartin,et al.  A HIERARCHICAL SPATIAL MODEL OF AVIAN ABUNDANCE WITH APPLICATION TO CERULEAN WARBLERS , 2004 .

[39]  Kenneth P. Burnham,et al.  Summarizing remarks: environmental influences , 1981 .

[40]  J Andrew Royle,et al.  Hierarchical distance-sampling models to estimate population size and habitat-specific abundance of an island endemic. , 2012, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[41]  K. Pollock,et al.  A Field Evaluation of Distance Measurement Error in Auditory Avian Point Count Surveys , 2007 .

[42]  Martyn Plummer,et al.  JAGS: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling , 2003 .

[43]  B A Wintle,et al.  Modeling species-habitat relationships with spatially autocorrelated observation data. , 2006, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[44]  Kenneth H. Pollock,et al.  TIME-OF-DETECTION METHOD FOR ESTIMATING ABUNDANCE FROM POINT-COUNT SURVEYS , 2007 .

[45]  Michael Schaub,et al.  Bayesian Population Analysis using WinBUGS: A Hierarchical Perspective , 2011 .

[46]  J. Schmidt,et al.  Reducing effort while improving inference: Estimating Dall's sheep abundance and composition in small areas , 2013 .

[47]  David L. Borchers,et al.  Estimating Distance Sampling Detection Functions When Distances Are Measured With Errors , 2010 .

[48]  Jonathan Bart,et al.  DOUBLE SAMPLING TO ESTIMATE DENSITY AND POPULATION TRENDS IN BIRDS , 2002 .

[49]  Kenneth H. Pollock,et al.  A REMOVAL MODEL FOR ESTIMATING DETECTION PROBABILITIES FROM POINT-COUNT SURVEYS , 2002 .

[50]  Gerald J Niemi,et al.  Estimating the effects of detection heterogeneity and overdispersion on trends estimated from avian point counts. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[51]  Stephen T. Buckland,et al.  POINT-TRANSECT SURVEYS FOR SONGBIRDS: ROBUST METHODOLOGIES , 2006 .

[52]  D. Rubin,et al.  Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences , 1992 .

[53]  K. Pollock,et al.  Factors affecting aural detections of songbirds. , 2007, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[54]  S. Oppel,et al.  Population status and trend of the Critically Endangered Montserrat Oriole , 2013, Bird Conservation International.

[55]  S. T. Buckland,et al.  Improving distance sampling: accounting for covariates and non‐independency between sampled sites , 2013 .

[56]  S. Buckland.  Introduction to distance sampling : estimating abundance of biological populations , 2001 .

[57]  H. Marsh,et al.  Correcting for visibility bias in strip transect aerial surveys of aquatic fauna , 1989 .

[58]  Richard B. Chandler,et al.  unmarked: An R Package for Fitting Hierarchical Models of Wildlife Occurrence and Abundance , 2011 .

[59]  Hugh P Possingham,et al.  Zero tolerance ecology: improving ecological inference by modelling the source of zero observations. , 2005, Ecology letters.

[60]  R. D. Cook,et al.  A design for estimating visibility bias in aerial surveys , 1979 .

[61]  Robert J. Fletcher,et al.  Does accounting for imperfect detection improve species distribution models , 2010 .

[62]  J. Andrew Royle.  N‐Mixture Models for Estimating Population Size from Spatially Replicated Counts , 2004, Biometrics.

[63]  F. Thompson,et al.  Comparison of Methods for Estimating Density of Forest Songbirds from Point Counts , 2011 .

[64]  J. Andrew Royle,et al.  MODELING AVIAN ABUNDANCE FROM REPLICATED COUNTS USING BINOMIAL MIXTURE MODELS , 2005 .

[65]  Jay M Ver Hoef,et al.  A Model‐Based Approach for Making Ecological Inference from Distance Sampling Data , 2010, Biometrics.

[66]  J. Andrew Royle,et al.  ESTIMATING ABUNDANCE FROM REPEATED PRESENCE–ABSENCE DATA OR POINT COUNTS , 2003 .

[67]  F. Thompson,et al.  Comparison of Methods for Estimating Bird Abundance and Trends From Historical Count Data , 2008 .

[68]  A. Møller,et al.  Extrapair paternity, migration, and breeding synchrony in birds , 2004 .

[69]  David R. Anderson,et al.  LANDBIRD COUNTING TECHNIQUES: CURRENT PRACTICES AND AN ALTERNATIVE , 2002 .

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

[71]  T. Slagsvold.  Bird song activity in relation to breeding cycle, spring weather and environmental phenology - statistical data , 1977 .

[72]  M. Morrison,et al.  Point-Based Mark-Recapture Distance Sampling , 2011 .

[73]  J. Nichols,et al.  Inferences About Landbird Abundance from Count Data: Recent Advances and Future Directions , 2009 .