Cited by 57Census and Population EstimationWildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies

Using simulation to compare methods for estimating density from capture–recapture data

Ivan, Jacob S., White, Gary C., Shenk, Tanya M.·2013·Ecology

Abstract

Estimation of animal density is fundamental to wildlife research and management, but estimation via mark–recapture is often complicated by lack of geographic closure of study sites. Contemporary methods for estimating density using mark–recapture data include (1) approximating the effective area sampled by an array of detectors based on the mean maximum distance moved (MMDM) by animals during the sampling session, (2) spatially explicit capture–recapture (SECR) methods that formulate the problem hierarchically with a process model for animal density and an observation model in which detection probability declines with distance from a detector, and (3) a telemetry estimator (TELEM) that uses auxiliary telemetry information to estimate the proportion of animals on the study site. We used simulation to compare relative performance (percent error) of these methods under all combinations of three levels of detection probability (0.2, 0.4, 0.6), three levels of occasions (5, 7, 10), and three levels of abundance (10, 20, 40 animals). We also tested each estimator using five different models for animal home ranges. TELEM performed best across most combinations of capture probabilities, sampling occasions, true densities, and home range configurations, and performance was unaffected by home range shape. SECR outperformed MMDM estimators in nearly all comparisons and may be preferable to TELEM at low capture probabilities, but performance varied with home range configuration. MMDM est…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/12-0102.1

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In 2008, large carnivore densities in the remaining private LUT were comparable to those found in protected areas elsewhere.

    “In 2008, large carnivore densities in the remaining private LUT were comparable to those found in protected areas elsewhere (Bailey, 2005; Bauer & Van Der Merwe, 2004; Ivan, White & Shenk, 2013; Mills & Hofer, 1998; Thorn et al., 2009; Woodroffe, McNutt & Mills, 2004).”

    From The impact of land reform on the status of large carnivores in Zimbabwe (2016) · cites this paper as Ivan, White & Shenk, 2013

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ivan, J. S., White, G. C., & Shenk, T. M.
Affiliations
  • Colorado State University (US)
  • National Park Service (US)
Corresponding author
Ivan, Jacob S.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-04
Volume
94
Issue
4
Pages
817-826
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
OpenAlex
W2016108777
Cited by
57
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Ecology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Census and Population Estimation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Keywords
animal density estimation, mark-recapture, spatial capture-recapture, detection probability, estimation bias, wildlife population monitoring

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review