Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,140

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Capture-Recapture Design Robust to Unequal Probability of Capture

Pollock, Kenneth H.·1982·The Journal of Wildlife Management

Abstract

At the basis of many capture-recapture sampling models is the assumption that all animals are equally likely to be caught in each sample (The Equal Catchability Assumption). This assumption is often violated in wildlife populations (Seber 1973:81) and 2 general types of alternatives exist (Pollock 1981): (1) Heterogeneity: The probability of capture in any sample is a property of the animal and may vary over the population. That is, animals may vary in capture probabilities according to age, sex, social status, and many other factors. (2) Trap response: The probability of capture in any sample depends on the animal's prior history of capture. That is, animals may become shy or happy depending upon the type of trapping method used. Either 1 or both of these 2 types of alternatives may be acting in a particular animal population. The traditional capture-recapture model used by biologists for closed populations (populations closed to additions or deletions) in short-term studies is the Schnabel Model (Schnabel 1938) that requires The Equal Catchability Assumption. In recent years there has been substantial research on models for closed populations that allow heterogeneity and/or trap response of the capture probabilities. Otis et al. (1978) published an important monograph on these models that allows their routine use by biologists. The capture-recapture model becoming used by biologists for open populations in long-term studies is the Jolly-Seber Model (Seber 1973). This model requires The Equal Catchability Assumption and the complexity of open population models is likely to preclude general models that allow heterogeneity and/or trap response. During the preparation of a review of capture-recapture methods (Pollock 1981), I realized that statisticians have drawn a sharp distinction between closed and open population models that is perhaps rather artificial. Here I describe a design for long-term studies that is robust to heterogeneity and/or trap response. It allows an analysis that uses methodology from closed and open population models. There is a brief examination of its robustness properties using simulation and an example is given in detail to illustrate the methodology for biologists.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/3808568

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,140

Metadata

Authors
Pollock, K. H.
Venue
The Journal of Wildlife Management
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1982-07
Volume
46
Issue
3
Pages
752
ISSN
0022-541X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2068002455
Cited by
1,140
References
0
FWCI
1.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Capture-Recapture Design Robust to Unequal Probability of Capture. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/3808568
The paper
Pollock, K. H. (1982). A Capture-Recapture Design Robust to Unequal Probability of Capture. The Journal of Wildlife Management. https://doi.org/10.2307/3808568

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.