Ignoring imperfect detection in biological surveys is dangerous: a response to 'fitting and interpreting occupancy models'.
Bottom Line:
We think that this conclusion and subsequent recommendations are not well founded and may negatively impact the quality of statistical inference in ecology and related management decisions.Resorting in those instances where hierarchical occupancy models do no perform well to the naïve occupancy estimator does not provide a satisfactory solution.The aim should instead be to achieve better estimation, by minimizing the effect of these issues during design, data collection and analysis, ensuring that the right amount of data is collected and model assumptions are met, considering model extensions where appropriate.
View Article:
PubMed Central - PubMed
Affiliation: School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
ABSTRACT
Show MeSH
In a recent paper, Welsh, Lindenmayer and Donnelly (WLD) question the usefulness of models that estimate species occupancy while accounting for detectability. WLD claim that these models are difficult to fit and argue that disregarding detectability can be better than trying to adjust for it. We think that this conclusion and subsequent recommendations are not well founded and may negatively impact the quality of statistical inference in ecology and related management decisions. Here we respond to WLD's claims, evaluating in detail their arguments, using simulations and/or theory to support our points. In particular, WLD argue that both disregarding and accounting for imperfect detection lead to the same estimator performance regardless of sample size when detectability is a function of abundance. We show that this, the key result of their paper, only holds for cases of extreme heterogeneity like the single scenario they considered. Our results illustrate the dangers of disregarding imperfect detection. When ignored, occupancy and detection are confounded: the same naïve occupancy estimates can be obtained for very different true levels of occupancy so the size of the bias is unknowable. Hierarchical occupancy models separate occupancy and detection, and imprecise estimates simply indicate that more data are required for robust inference about the system in question. As for any statistical method, when underlying assumptions of simple hierarchical models are violated, their reliability is reduced. Resorting in those instances where hierarchical occupancy models do no perform well to the naïve occupancy estimator does not provide a satisfactory solution. The aim should instead be to achieve better estimation, by minimizing the effect of these issues during design, data collection and analysis, ensuring that the right amount of data is collected and model assumptions are met, considering model extensions where appropriate. Related in: MedlinePlus |
Related In:
Results -
Collection
License getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4116132&req=5
Mentions: The same conclusions can be drawn from our detailed exploration of a wide range of heterogeneity scenarios (from none to extreme), assuming a single covariate category (Figure 6). We derived the corresponding analytical expressions for the relative asymptotic bias of the occupancy estimator in the naïve and hierarchical models, which are(2)with hats (∧) indicating estimates. We observe that, under extreme heterogeneity (i.e. detectability switching only between values 0 or 1), the asymptotic bias for both models is . As heterogeneity decreases, the bias of the naïve model reduces but remains at in the absence of heterogeneity. The bias of the hierarchical model decreases faster, reaching zero for the case without heterogeneity, and can be substantially lower that the bias in the naïve model for realistic heterogeneity scenarios. The bias expression in (2) shows that, as expected, the amount of bias in the hierarchical model depends on how well the perceived detectability captures the actual likelihood of detecting/missing the species at occupied sites. |
View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed
Affiliation: School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.