ROBUSTNESS OF CLOSED CAPTURE-RECAPTURE METHODS TO VIOLATIONS OF THE CLOSURE ASSUMPTION

Closed-population capture-recapture methods have been used extensively in animal ecology, both by themselves and within the context of Pollock's robust design and multistate models, to estimate various parameters of population and community dynamics. The defining assumption of geographic and demographic closure (i.e., no births, deaths, immigration, or emigration) for the duration of sampling is restrictive and is likely to be violated in many field situations. I evaluated several types of violations of the closure assumption and found that completely random movement in and out of a study area does not introduce bias to estimators from closed-population methods, although it decreases precision. In addition, if capture probabilities vary only with time, the closed-population Lincoln-Petersen estimator is unbiased for the size of the superpopulation when there are only births/immigration or only deaths/emigration. However, for other cases of nonrandom movement, closed-population estimators were biased when movement was Markovian (de- pendent on the presence/absence of the animal in the previous time period), when an animal was allowed one entry to and one exit from the study area, or when there was trap response or heterogeneity among animals in capture probability. In addition, the probability that an animal is present and available for capture (e.g., breeding propensity) can be estimated using Pollock's robust design only when movement occurs at a broader temporal scale than that of sampling.

[1]  C. Schwarz,et al.  Estimating salmon spawning escapement using capture-recapture methods , 1993 .

[2]  Kenneth H. Pollock,et al.  The Use of a Robust Capture-Recapture Design in Small Mammal Population Studies: A Field Example with Microtus pennsylvanicus , 1984 .

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

[4]  James D. Nichols,et al.  On the use of secondary capture-recapture samples to estimate temporary emigration and breeding proportions , 1995 .

[5]  K H Pollock,et al.  Tests for mortality and recruitment in a K-sample tag-recapture experiment. , 1974, Biometrics.

[6]  J. Darroch.  THE MULTIPLE-RECAPTURE CENSUS II. ESTIMATION WHEN THERE IS IMMIGRATION OR DEATH , 1959 .

[7]  R. Rockwell,et al.  NATAL AND BREEDING PHILOPATRY IN A BLACK BRANT, BRANTA BERNICLA NIGRICANS, METAPOPULATION , 1998 .

[8]  G. Jolly.  EXPLICIT ESTIMATES FROM CAPTURE-RECAPTURE DATA WITH BOTH DEATH AND IMMIGRATION-STOCHASTIC MODEL. , 1965, Biometrika.

[9]  J. Nichols,et al.  Inference Methods for Spatial Variation in Species Richness and Community Composition When Not All Species Are Detected , 1998 .

[10]  C J Schwarz,et al.  Mark-recapture estimation of a salmon smolt population. , 1994, Biometrics.

[11]  K. Pollock.  A Capture-Recapture Design Robust to Unequal Probability of Capture , 1982 .

[12]  J. Bunge,et al.  Estimating the Number of Species: A Review , 1993 .

[13]  Kenneth H. Pollock,et al.  Estimation of Recruitment from Immigration Versus In Situ Reproduction Using Pollock's Robust Design , 1990 .

[14]  James D. Nichols,et al.  Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Mammals , 1996 .

[15]  Gordon C. Grigg,et al.  A Double-Survey Estimate Of Population Size From Incomplete Counts , 1978 .

[16]  B. Manly,et al.  Parsimonious modelling of capture―mark―recapture studies , 1985 .

[17]  G. Seber.  The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters , 1974 .

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

[19]  Norman A. Slade,et al.  APPLICATION OF MARK–RECAPTURE MODELS TO ESTIMATION OF THE POPULATION SIZE OF PLANTS , 1997 .

[20]  J. Nichols,et al.  ESTIMATING RATES OF LOCAL SPECIES EXTINCTION, COLONIZATION, AND TURNOVER IN ANIMAL COMMUNITIES , 1998 .

[21]  K. Burnham,et al.  Robust Estimation of Population Size When Capture Probabilities Vary Among Animals , 1979 .

[22]  C. Schwarz,et al.  ESTIMATING TEMPORARY MIGRATION USING THE ROBUST DESIGN , 1997 .

[23]  Stanley H. Anderson,et al.  Estimation of Small‐Mammal Population Size , 1988 .

[24]  J. Darroch.  THE MULTIPLE-RECAPTURE CENSUS I. ESTIMATION OF A CLOSED POPULATION , 1958 .

[25]  J. Nichols,et al.  ESTIMATION OF TIGER DENSITIES IN INDIA USING PHOTOGRAPHIC CAPTURES AND RECAPTURES , 1998 .

[26]  R. Routledge,et al.  The Method of Bounded Counts: When Does It Work? , 1982 .

[27]  Jon M. Gerrard,et al.  Aerial-Visibility Bias and Survey Techniques for Nesting Bald Eagles in Northwestern Ontario , 1981 .

[28]  Carl J. Schwarz,et al.  A General Methodology for the Analysis of Capture-Recapture Experiments in Open Populations , 1996 .

[29]  Kenneth H. Pollock,et al.  Estimating Transition Probabilities for Stage‐Based Population Projection Matrices Using Capture‐Recapture Data , 1992 .

[30]  J. Nichols,et al.  ESTIMATING SPECIES RICHNESS: THE IMPORTANCE OF HETEROGENEITY IN SPECIES DETECTABILITY , 1998 .

[31]  Kenneth H. Pollock,et al.  The Robust Design in Capture-Recapture Studies: A Review and Evaluation by Monte Carlo Simulation , 1992 .

[32]  Calvin Zippin,et al.  An Evaluation of the Removal Method of Estimating Animal Populations , 1956 .

[33]  James E. Hines,et al.  ESTIMATING TEMPORARY EMIGRATION USING CAPTURE-RECAPTURE DATA WITH POLLOCK'S ROBUST DESIGN , 1997 .

[34]  J. Packard,et al.  Variation of visibility bias during aerial surveys of manatees , 1985 .