Balancing Precision and Risk: Should Multiple Detection Methods Be Analyzed Separately in N-Mixture Models?

Tabitha A. Graves, J. Andrew Royle, Katherine C. Kendall, Paul Beier, Jeffrey B. Stetz, Amy C. Macleod

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Using multiple detection methods can increase the number, kind, and distribution of individuals sampled, which may increase accuracy and precision and reduce cost of population abundance estimates. However, when variables influencing abundance are of interest, if individuals detected via different methods are influenced by the landscape differently, separate analysis of multiple detection methods may be more appropriate. We evaluated the effects of combining two detection methods on the identification of variables important to local abundance using detections of grizzly bears with hair traps (systematic) and bear rubs (opportunistic). We used hierarchical abundance models (N-mixture models) with separate model components for each detection method. If both methods sample the same population, the use of either data set alone should (1) lead to the selection of the same variables as important and (2) provide similar estimates of relative local abundance. We hypothesized that the inclusion of 2 detection methods versus either method alone should (3) yield more support for variables identified in single method analyses (i.e. fewer variables and models with greater weight), and (4) improve precision of covariate estimates for variables selected in both separate and combined analyses because sample size is larger. As expected, joint analysis of both methods increased precision as well as certainty in variable and model selection. However, the single-method analyses identified different variables and the resulting predicted abundances had different spatial distributions. We recommend comparing single-method and jointly modeled results to identify the presence of individual heterogeneity between detection methods in N-mixture models, along with consideration of detection probabilities, correlations among variables, and tolerance to risk of failing to identify variables important to a subset of the population. The benefits of increased precision should be weighed against those risks. The analysis framework presented here will be useful for other species exhibiting heterogeneity by detection method.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere49410
JournalPLoS One
Volume7
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 12 2012

Fingerprint

methodology
Spatial distribution
Population
Ursidae
Ursus arctos
Costs
Sample Size
Hair
spatial distribution
Weights and Measures
Costs and Cost Analysis
sampling

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Balancing Precision and Risk : Should Multiple Detection Methods Be Analyzed Separately in N-Mixture Models? / Graves, Tabitha A.; Royle, J. Andrew; Kendall, Katherine C.; Beier, Paul; Stetz, Jeffrey B.; Macleod, Amy C.

In: PLoS One, Vol. 7, No. 12, e49410, 12.12.2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Graves, Tabitha A. ; Royle, J. Andrew ; Kendall, Katherine C. ; Beier, Paul ; Stetz, Jeffrey B. ; Macleod, Amy C. / Balancing Precision and Risk : Should Multiple Detection Methods Be Analyzed Separately in N-Mixture Models?. In: PLoS One. 2012 ; Vol. 7, No. 12.
@article{9a67761e306041bba194a3625962a3a3,
title = "Balancing Precision and Risk: Should Multiple Detection Methods Be Analyzed Separately in N-Mixture Models?",
abstract = "Using multiple detection methods can increase the number, kind, and distribution of individuals sampled, which may increase accuracy and precision and reduce cost of population abundance estimates. However, when variables influencing abundance are of interest, if individuals detected via different methods are influenced by the landscape differently, separate analysis of multiple detection methods may be more appropriate. We evaluated the effects of combining two detection methods on the identification of variables important to local abundance using detections of grizzly bears with hair traps (systematic) and bear rubs (opportunistic). We used hierarchical abundance models (N-mixture models) with separate model components for each detection method. If both methods sample the same population, the use of either data set alone should (1) lead to the selection of the same variables as important and (2) provide similar estimates of relative local abundance. We hypothesized that the inclusion of 2 detection methods versus either method alone should (3) yield more support for variables identified in single method analyses (i.e. fewer variables and models with greater weight), and (4) improve precision of covariate estimates for variables selected in both separate and combined analyses because sample size is larger. As expected, joint analysis of both methods increased precision as well as certainty in variable and model selection. However, the single-method analyses identified different variables and the resulting predicted abundances had different spatial distributions. We recommend comparing single-method and jointly modeled results to identify the presence of individual heterogeneity between detection methods in N-mixture models, along with consideration of detection probabilities, correlations among variables, and tolerance to risk of failing to identify variables important to a subset of the population. The benefits of increased precision should be weighed against those risks. The analysis framework presented here will be useful for other species exhibiting heterogeneity by detection method.",
author = "Graves, {Tabitha A.} and Royle, {J. Andrew} and Kendall, {Katherine C.} and Paul Beier and Stetz, {Jeffrey B.} and Macleod, {Amy C.}",
year = "2012",
month = "12",
day = "12",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0049410",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "7",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Balancing Precision and Risk

T2 - Should Multiple Detection Methods Be Analyzed Separately in N-Mixture Models?

AU - Graves, Tabitha A.

AU - Royle, J. Andrew

AU - Kendall, Katherine C.

AU - Beier, Paul

AU - Stetz, Jeffrey B.

AU - Macleod, Amy C.

PY - 2012/12/12

Y1 - 2012/12/12

N2 - Using multiple detection methods can increase the number, kind, and distribution of individuals sampled, which may increase accuracy and precision and reduce cost of population abundance estimates. However, when variables influencing abundance are of interest, if individuals detected via different methods are influenced by the landscape differently, separate analysis of multiple detection methods may be more appropriate. We evaluated the effects of combining two detection methods on the identification of variables important to local abundance using detections of grizzly bears with hair traps (systematic) and bear rubs (opportunistic). We used hierarchical abundance models (N-mixture models) with separate model components for each detection method. If both methods sample the same population, the use of either data set alone should (1) lead to the selection of the same variables as important and (2) provide similar estimates of relative local abundance. We hypothesized that the inclusion of 2 detection methods versus either method alone should (3) yield more support for variables identified in single method analyses (i.e. fewer variables and models with greater weight), and (4) improve precision of covariate estimates for variables selected in both separate and combined analyses because sample size is larger. As expected, joint analysis of both methods increased precision as well as certainty in variable and model selection. However, the single-method analyses identified different variables and the resulting predicted abundances had different spatial distributions. We recommend comparing single-method and jointly modeled results to identify the presence of individual heterogeneity between detection methods in N-mixture models, along with consideration of detection probabilities, correlations among variables, and tolerance to risk of failing to identify variables important to a subset of the population. The benefits of increased precision should be weighed against those risks. The analysis framework presented here will be useful for other species exhibiting heterogeneity by detection method.

AB - Using multiple detection methods can increase the number, kind, and distribution of individuals sampled, which may increase accuracy and precision and reduce cost of population abundance estimates. However, when variables influencing abundance are of interest, if individuals detected via different methods are influenced by the landscape differently, separate analysis of multiple detection methods may be more appropriate. We evaluated the effects of combining two detection methods on the identification of variables important to local abundance using detections of grizzly bears with hair traps (systematic) and bear rubs (opportunistic). We used hierarchical abundance models (N-mixture models) with separate model components for each detection method. If both methods sample the same population, the use of either data set alone should (1) lead to the selection of the same variables as important and (2) provide similar estimates of relative local abundance. We hypothesized that the inclusion of 2 detection methods versus either method alone should (3) yield more support for variables identified in single method analyses (i.e. fewer variables and models with greater weight), and (4) improve precision of covariate estimates for variables selected in both separate and combined analyses because sample size is larger. As expected, joint analysis of both methods increased precision as well as certainty in variable and model selection. However, the single-method analyses identified different variables and the resulting predicted abundances had different spatial distributions. We recommend comparing single-method and jointly modeled results to identify the presence of individual heterogeneity between detection methods in N-mixture models, along with consideration of detection probabilities, correlations among variables, and tolerance to risk of failing to identify variables important to a subset of the population. The benefits of increased precision should be weighed against those risks. The analysis framework presented here will be useful for other species exhibiting heterogeneity by detection method.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84871182570&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84871182570&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0049410

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0049410

M3 - Article

C2 - 23251342

AN - SCOPUS:84871182570

VL - 7

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 12

M1 - e49410

ER -