Using simulation to compare methods for estimating density from capture–recapture data
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
The impact of land reform on the status of large carnivores in Zimbabwe
Williams, S. T., Williams, K. S., Joubert, C. J., & Hill, R. A. (2016) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.1537 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ivan, J. S., White, G. C., & Shenk, T. M.
- Affiliations
- Colorado State University (US)
- National Park Service (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ivan, Jacob S.
- ORCID
- 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