Effect of spatial overdispersion on confidence intervals for population density estimated by spatial capture-recapture
Abstract
Spatially explicit capture-recapture models are used widely to estimate the density of animal populations. The population is represented by an inhomogeneous Poisson point process, where each point is the activity centre of an individual and density corresponds to the intensity surface. Estimates of density that assume a homogeneous model ( average density) are robust to unmodelled inhomogeneity, and the coverage of confidence intervals is good when the intensity surface does not change, even if it is quite uneven. However, coverage is poor when the intensity surface differs among realisations. Practical examples include populations with dynamic social aggregation, and the population in a region sampled using small detector arrays. Poor coverage results from overdispersion of the number of detected individuals; the number is Poisson when the intensity surface is static, but stochasticity leads to extra-Poisson variation. We investigated overdispersion from three point processes with a stochastic intensity surface (Thomas cluster process, random habitat mosaic and log-Gaussian Cox process). A previously proposed correction for overdispersion performed poorly. The problem is lessened by assuming population size to be fixed, but this assumption cannot be justified for common study designs. Rigorous correction for spatial overdispersion requires either prior knowledge of the generating process or replicated and representative sampling. When the generating process is known, variation in a new scalar measure of local density predicts overdispersion. Otherwise, overdispersion may be estimated empirically from the numbers detected on independent detector arrays.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 3
- FWCI
- 1.55
- Field percentile
- top 20%
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Spatially explicit capture-recapture models for relative density
Murray G. Efford·EcologyPeer-reviewed·Jul 1, 2026
- Does the punishment fit the crime? Consequences and diagnosis of misspecified detection functions in Bayesian spatial capture-recapture modelling
S. Dey, R. Bischof, … C. Milleret·bioRxiv·Jan 12, 2021
- Consequences of ignoring variable and spatially-autocorrelated detection probability in spatial capture-recapture
E. M. Moqanaki, C. Milleret, … R. Bischof·bioRxiv·Dec 24, 2020
- Unifying Population and Landscape Ecology with Spatial Capture-recapture
J. A. Royle, A. K. Fuller, C. Sutherland·bioRxiv·Feb 1, 2017
- Modelling spatially autocorrelated detection probabilities in spatial capture-recapture using random effects
S. Dey, E. M. Moqanaki, … R. Bischof·bioRxiv·May 12, 2022
- Spatial Capture-Recapture for Categorically Marked Populations with An Application to Genetic Capture-Recapture
B. Augustine, J. A. Royle, … M. Kelly·EcospherePeer-reviewed·Apr 1, 2019