Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Dataset . 2018
License: CC 0
Data sources: ZENODO
DRYAD
Dataset . 2018
License: CC 0
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Data from: Generalized spatial mark-resight models with an application to grizzly bears

Authors: Whittington, Jesse; Hebblewhite, Mark; Chandler, Richard B.;

Data from: Generalized spatial mark-resight models with an application to grizzly bears

Abstract

1. The high cost associated with capture-recapture studies presents a major challenge when monitoring and managing wildlife populations. Recently-developed spatial mark-resight (SMR) models were proposed as a cost-effective alternative because they only require a single marking event. However, existing SMR models ignore the marking process and make the tenuous assumption that marked and unmarked populations have the same encounter probabilities. This assumption will be violated in most situations because the marking process results in different spatial distributions of marked and unmarked animals. 2. We developed a generalized SMR model that includes sub-models for the marking and resighting processes, thereby relaxing the assumption that marked and unmarked populations have the same spatial distributions and encounter probabilities. 3. Our simulation study demonstrated that conventional SMR models produce biased density estimates with low credible interval coverage when marked and unmarked animals had differing spatial distributions. In contrast, generalized SMR models produced unbiased density estimates with correct credible interval coverage in all scenarios. 4. We applied our SMR model to grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) data where the marking process occurred along a transportation route through Banff and Yoho National Parks, Canada. Twenty-two grizzly bears were trapped, fitted with radio-collars, and then detected along with unmarked bears on 214 remote cameras. Closed population density estimates (posterior median + 1 SD) averaged from 2012 to 2014 were much lower for conventional SMR models (7.4 + 1.0 bears per 1,000 km2) than for generalized SMR models (12.4 + 1.5). When compared to previous DNA-based estimates, conventional SMR estimates erroneously suggested a 51% decline in density. Conversely, generalized SMR estimates were similar to previous estimates, indicating that the grizzly bear population was relatively stable. 5. Synthesis and application. Conventional SMR models that ignore the marking process should only be used when marked and unmarked animals share the same spatial distribution, such as when a subset of the population has natural marks. Generalized SMR models that include the marking process are much more widely applicable. They represent a promising new approach for reducing the costs of studies aimed at understanding spatial and temporal variation in density.24-May-2017

Grizzly Bear Generalized Spatial Mark-Resight Scripts and DataGeneralized SMR Scripts and Data.zip

Related Organizations
Keywords

point process model, camera trap, telemetry, Population density, hierarchical model, population density, spatial capture-recapture

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    OpenAIRE UsageCounts
    Usage byUsageCounts
    visibility views 2
    download downloads 3
  • 2
    views
    3
    downloads
    Powered byOpenAIRE UsageCounts
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
visibility
download
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
views
OpenAIRE UsageCountsViews provided by UsageCounts
downloads
OpenAIRE UsageCountsDownloads provided by UsageCounts
0
Average
Average
Average
2
3
Related to Research communities