Summary 1.Analysis of population trajectories is central to assessing risk in populations of conservation concern. In animal studies, researchers realize that probabilities of detection of individuals are often less than one. Plants can also escape detection due to dormancy, herbivory, or observer error, but such information is rarely incorporated into population studies. 2.We monitored a population of Asclepias meadii , a rare long-lived prairie perennial. Despite standardized methods, numbers of observed plants fluctuated greatly from 1992 to 2006. Individual plants often had periods of 1-5 years between initial and final sighting when no stems were found. To determine the actual population trajectories, we estimated rates of survival and population growth using mark-recapture models. We also estimated initial and resighting probabilities of detection. In 2007, we repeated surveys to identify reasons for low detection probabilities. 3. We estimated 95% annual survival and a population growth rate of 1.023. Probabilities of initial detection were low (typically from 0.120 to 0.311 depending on prairie burn treatment), whereas average probability of detection for marked plants was 0.728. 4. Comparisons of survival estimates from 15-and 8-year data sets revealed that survival estimates decline in the final years of a multi-year period, probably due to heterogeneity in encounter histories. 5. By conducting three different surveys in 2007, we found that both herbivory over a multiple-week period and observer error contributed substantially to gaps in detection. 6. Synthesis. Probabilities of detection that are less than one complicate interpretation of population dynamics, whether of mobile animals or inconspicuous plants. Our work illustrates three general points that could apply to many plant population studies: (i) mark-recapture models may provide insights on vital rates and population trajectories despite the extreme variability in count data that can arise because of low detectability, (ii) probabilities of initial detection can be quantified and can be considerably less than probabilities of resighting, and (iii) repeated surveys can help researchers determine the degree to which dormancy, herbivory, or observer error contribute to low probabilities of detection. Consideration of these points can improve the design and analysis of monitoring programs.
Monitoring programs, where numbers of individuals are followed through time, are central to conservation. Although incomplete detection is expected with wildlife surveys, this topic is rarely considered with plants. However, if plants are missed in surveys, raw count data can lead to biased estimates of population abundance and vital rates. To illustrate, we had five independent observers survey patches of the rare plant Asclepias meadii at two prairie sites. We analyzed data with two mark-recapture approaches. Using the program CAPTURE, the estimated number of patches equaled the detected number for a burned site, but exceeded detected numbers by 28% for an unburned site. Analyses of detected patches using Huggins models revealed important effects of observer, patch state (flowering/nonflowering), and patch size (number of stems) on probabilities of detection. Although some results were expected (i.e. greater detection of flowering than nonflowering patches), the importance of our approach is the ability to quantify the magnitude of detection problems. We also evaluated the degree to which increased observer numbers improved detection: smaller groups (3–4 observers) generally found 90 – 99% of the patches found by all five people, but pairs of observers or single observers had high error and detection depended on which individuals were involved. We conclude that an intensive study at the start of a long-term monitoring study provides essential information about probabilities of detection and what factors cause plants to be missed. This information can guide development of monitoring programs.
We assessed seed predation by vertebrates and invertebrates in three fire-frequency treatments (<1 year, 1–4 years, and >4 years since fire) and in three topographic positions (upland, limestone breaks, and lowland) in tallgrass prairie. Two types of seed trays, one for vertebrates and one for invertebrates, were placed in each treatment during each nocturnal and diurnal period. Vertebrates removed significantly more seeds than did invertebrates. Fire frequency and topographic position affected seed removal by both vertebrates and invertebrates. Seed removal by invertebrates was influenced negatively by fire; the greatest seed removal occurred in uplands and lowlands in unburned prairie. Vertebrates removed the most seeds in burned prairie and in lowlands and limestone breaks. Time of day also influenced seed removal by vertebrates, as nocturnal vertebrates (assumed to be rodents) removed more seeds than diurnal vertebrates. Abundance of rodents, however, did not predict accurately seed removal in fire treatments or topographic positions, as rodents removed fewer seeds than expected in prairie that had not been burned in >4 years and in lowlands. This pattern likely was due to the presence of a well-developed plant litter layer in both unburned and lowland habitats, which reduces the likelihood of a rodent locating seeds.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.