Sanderlin Jamie S, Block William M, Strohmeyer Brenda E, Saab Victoria A, Ganey Joseph L
Rocky Mountain Research Station U.S.D.A. Forest Service Flagstaff Arizona.
Rocky Mountain Research Station U.S.D.A. Forest Service Bozeman Montana.
Ecol Evol. 2019 Feb 5;9(2):804-817. doi: 10.1002/ece3.4825. eCollection 2019 Jan.
Capture-recapture techniques provide valuable information, but are often more cost-prohibitive at large spatial and temporal scales than less-intensive sampling techniques. Model development combining multiple data sources to leverage data source strengths and for improved parameter precision has increased, but with limited discussion on precision gain versus effort. We present a general framework for evaluating trade-offs between precision gained and costs associated with acquiring multiple data sources, useful for designing future or new phases of current studies.We illustrated how Bayesian hierarchical joint models using detection/non-detection and banding data can improve abundance, survival, and recruitment inference, and quantified data source costs in a northern Arizona, USA, western bluebird () population. We used an 8-year detection/non-detection (distributed across the landscape) and banding (subset of locations within landscape) data set to estimate parameters. We constructed separate models using detection/non-detection and banding data, and a joint model using both data types to evaluate parameter precision gain relative to effort.Joint model parameter estimates were more precise than single data model estimates, but parameter precision varied (apparent survival > abundance > recruitment). Banding provided greater apparent survival precision than detection/non-detection data. Therefore, little precision was gained when detection/non-detection data were added to banding data. Additional costs were minimal; however, additional spatial coverage and ability to estimate abundance and recruitment improved inference. Conversely, more precision was gained when adding banding to detection/non-detection data at higher cost. Spatial coverage was identical, yet survival and abundance estimates were more precise. Justification of increased costs associated with additional data types depends on project objectives.We illustrate a general framework for evaluating precision gain relative to effort, applicable to joint data models with any data type combination. This framework evaluates costs and benefits from and effort levels between multiple data types, thus improving population monitoring designs.
捕获-再捕获技术能提供有价值的信息,但在大空间和时间尺度上,其成本往往比强度较低的抽样技术更高。结合多个数据源以利用数据源优势并提高参数精度的模型开发有所增加,但关于精度提升与工作量之间的讨论有限。我们提出了一个通用框架,用于评估获取多个数据源所获得的精度与相关成本之间的权衡,这对于设计当前研究的未来阶段或新阶段很有用。我们说明了使用检测/未检测数据和环志数据的贝叶斯分层联合模型如何能改善种群数量、存活率和补充率的推断,并在美国亚利桑那州北部西部蓝鸲(学名:Sialia mexicana)种群中量化了数据源成本。我们使用了一个为期8年的检测/未检测(分布在整个研究区域)和环志(研究区域内部分地点)数据集来估计参数。我们分别使用检测/未检测数据和环志数据构建了模型,并使用两种数据类型构建了联合模型,以评估相对于工作量的参数精度提升。联合模型的参数估计比单一数据模型的估计更精确,但参数精度有所不同(表观存活率>种群数量>补充率)。环志提供的表观存活率精度比检测/未检测数据更高。因此,将检测/未检测数据添加到环志数据时,精度提升不大。额外成本很低;然而,额外的空间覆盖范围以及估计种群数量和补充率的能力改善了推断。相反,以更高成本将环志数据添加到检测/未检测数据时,能获得更高的精度。空间覆盖范围相同,但存活率和种群数量估计更精确。与额外数据类型相关的成本增加是否合理取决于项目目标。我们阐述了一个用于评估相对于工作量的精度提升的通用框架,适用于任何数据类型组合的联合数据模型。该框架评估了多种数据类型的成本和收益以及工作量水平,从而改进种群监测设计。