Banks-Leite Cristina, Pardini Renata, Boscolo Danilo, Cassano Camila Righetto, Püttker Thomas, Barros Camila Santos, Barlow Jos
Grand Challenges in Ecosystems and the Environment, Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London Silwood Park Campus, Ascot, SL5 7PY, UK ; Departmento de Ecologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo Rua do Matão, 101, trav. 14, São Paulo, SP, 05508-090, Brazil.
Departmento de Zoologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo Rua do Matão, 101, trav. 14, São Paulo, SP, 05508-090, Brazil.
J Appl Ecol. 2014 Aug;51(4):849-859. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12272. Epub 2014 Jun 2.
In recent years, there has been a fast development of models that adjust for imperfect detection. These models have revolutionized the analysis of field data, and their use has repeatedly demonstrated the importance of sampling design and data quality. There are, however, several practical limitations associated with the use of detectability models which restrict their relevance to tropical conservation science. We outline the main advantages of detectability models, before examining their limitations associated with their applicability to the analysis of tropical communities, rare species and large-scale data sets. Finally, we discuss whether detection probability needs to be controlled before and/or after data collection. Models that adjust for imperfect detection allow ecologists to assess data quality by estimating uncertainty and to obtain adjusted ecological estimates of populations and communities. Importantly, these models have allowed informed decisions to be made about the conservation and management of target species. Data requirements for obtaining unadjusted estimates are substantially lower than for detectability-adjusted estimates, which require relatively high detection/recapture probabilities and a number of repeated surveys at each location. These requirements can be difficult to meet in large-scale environmental studies where high levels of spatial replication are needed, or in the tropics where communities are composed of many naturally rare species. However, while imperfect detection can only be adjusted statistically, covariates of detection probability can also be controlled through study design. Using three study cases where we controlled for covariates of detection probability through sampling design, we show that the variation in unadjusted ecological estimates from nearly 100 species was qualitatively the same as that obtained from adjusted estimates. Finally, we discuss that the decision as to whether one should control for covariates of detection probability through study design or statistical analyses should be dependent on study objectives. . Models that adjust for imperfect detection are an important part of an ecologist's toolkit, but they should not be uniformly adopted in all studies. Ecologists should never let the constraints of models dictate which questions should be pursued or how the data should be analysed, and detectability models are no exception. We argue for pluralism in scientific methods, particularly where cost-effective applied ecological science is needed to inform conservation policy at a range of different scales and in many different systems.
近年来,针对不完全检测进行调整的模型发展迅速。这些模型彻底改变了野外数据的分析方式,其应用多次证明了抽样设计和数据质量的重要性。然而,使用可检测性模型存在一些实际限制,这限制了它们在热带保护科学中的相关性。在探讨其与热带群落、珍稀物种和大规模数据集分析适用性相关的局限性之前,我们概述了可检测性模型的主要优点。最后,我们讨论了在数据收集之前和/或之后是否需要控制检测概率。针对不完全检测进行调整的模型使生态学家能够通过估计不确定性来评估数据质量,并获得经调整的种群和群落生态估计值。重要的是,这些模型有助于就目标物种的保护和管理做出明智的决策。获得未调整估计值的数据要求远低于可检测性调整估计值的数据要求,后者需要相对较高的检测/再捕获概率以及在每个地点进行多次重复调查。在需要高水平空间重复的大规模环境研究中,或者在由许多自然珍稀物种组成群落的热带地区,这些要求可能难以满足。然而,虽然不完全检测只能通过统计方法进行调整,但检测概率的协变量也可以通过研究设计来控制。通过三个我们通过抽样设计控制检测概率协变量的研究案例,我们表明近100个物种未调整生态估计值的变化在性质上与经调整估计值的变化相同。最后,我们讨论了是通过研究设计还是统计分析来控制检测概率协变量的决策应取决于研究目标。针对不完全检测进行调整的模型是生态学家工具包的重要组成部分,但不应在所有研究中一律采用。生态学家绝不应该让模型的限制决定应该追求哪些问题或如何分析数据,可检测性模型也不例外。我们主张科学方法的多元化,特别是在需要具有成本效益的应用生态科学为一系列不同尺度和许多不同系统的保护政策提供信息的情况下。