Accounting for weather and time-of-day parameters when analysing count data from monitoring programs

Abstract

Problems induced by heterogeneity in species and individuals detectability are now well recognized when analysing count data. Yet, most recent techniques developed to handle this problem are still hardly applicable to many monitoring schemes, and do not provide abundance estimates at the point count scale. Here, we show how using simple weather variables can be a useful surrogate to detect variability in species detectability. We further look for a potential bias or loss in statistical power based on count data while ignoring weather and time-of-day variables. We first used the French Breeding Bird Survey to test how each of the counts of the 97 most common breeding species was influenced by weather and time-of-day variables. We assessed how the estimation of each species response to fragmentation could be influenced by correcting counts with such variables. Among 97 species, 75 were affected by at least one of the five weather and time-of-day variables considered. Despite these strong influences, the relationship between species abundance and fragmentation was not biased when not controlling counts for weather and time-of-day variables and further found no improvement in statistical power when accounting for these variables. Our results show that simple variables can be very powerful to assess how species detectability is influenced by weather conditions but they are inconsistent with any specific bias due to heterogeneous detectability. We suggest that raw count data can be used without any correction in case the sources of variation in detectability could be considered independent to the factor of interest.

Citizen Science as an Ecological Research Tool: Challenges and Benefits

“…Several studies of volunteer-based monitoring programs conducted over many years have documented "learner" or "first-year" effects, where observers become better data collectors over time (Bas et al 2008, Jiguet 2009, Kendall et al 1996, Sauer et al 1994, Schmeller et al 2009). Improvement is expected with increased familiarity with protocols, improved identification skills, and increased awareness of where and when certain species occupy certain areas.…”

Cuckoo and biodiversity: Testing the correlation between species occurrence and bird species richness in Europe

“…In fact, because count data consistently has problems induced by heterogeneity in species and individual detectability, several methodological approaches have been developed to account for variations in the detection probabilities of species (Comte and Grenouillet, 2013;Kéry and Schmidt, 2008;Lahoz-Monfort et al, 2014). In contrast, the use of a single bird species means that there is no variation in detection probability, and uncorrected values are acceptable for identifying ecological patterns and general responses (Bas et al, 2008).…”

Towards the Automatic Classification of Avian Flight Calls for Bioacoustic Monitoring

“…However, much biodiversity monitoring has been performed by expert humans, who typically rely on auditory cues to detect and classify bird species, because replicating and automating humans’ abilities have proven very challenging to the extent that automated systems cannot routinely replace humans in conducting biodiversity surveys for birds. Yet, a number of factors constrain human monitoring, including variability in observer skills in detection and classification [1–3], temporal mismatches in observer effort and biological phenomena [4, 5], and spatial mismatches in observer coverage and biological distributions [6, 7]. …”