An examination of index‐calibration experiments: counting tigers at macroecological scales

Abstract

Summary1. An index-calibration experiment involves rigorous estimation of animal abundance at a small scale to calibrate a less rigorously derived index of abundance. The efficacy of such index-calibration experiments has been a matter of much controversy. In this study, we develop theoretical models and test them with empirical data on large-scale index-calibration experiments on tigers Panthera tigris to advance our understanding of this controversy. 2. We propose two models that describe the sampling processes involved in typical index-calibration experiments. Using analytical derivations and some simulations, we evaluate the relative roles of these sampling parameters on the R 2 (coefficient of determination) statistic -a common inferential tool used in such calibration experiments. 3. We make predictions about the R 2 statistic using our theoretical derivations and estimates from large-scale occupancy surveys of tigers in India. We then compare our predictions with empirical estimates of two tiger sign index-calibration experiments (IC-Karanth and IC-Jhala). 4. Our theoretical models show that the R 2 statistic increases when individual-specific detection probability is high and is constant, increases when the variance-to-mean ratio of abundance increases, increases when precision of abundance estimates improves and declines when mean abundance increases. All predictions about the two index-calibration experiments showed a poor performance of the R 2 statistic (R 2 < 0Á40). Inference from ICKaranth was extremely poor (R 2 ¼ 0Á0004) and comparable to model predictions (P value = 0Á0754). Anomalously (P value < 0Á0001), inference from IC-Jhala was exceedingly high (R 2 ¼ 0Á95). 5. Our study shows that such direct index-calibration experiments using the R 2 statistic yield poor inferences unless all the sampling process parameters lie within a limited range. Ignoring the consequence of the effect of these parameters during survey design could result in expenditure of huge resources with little gain in ecological inference. Analysis using joint likelihood models, with appropriate survey designs, may be more fruitful than clinging on to such composite, direct R 2 -based models.

Evaluating spatially explicit density estimates of unmarked wildlife detected by remote cameras

“…Generalized linear models estimate relationships between photographic rates and prior density estimates (Rovero & Marshall, ), and N‐mixture models provide estimates of site‐specific abundance that can be used to infer differences between species or sites (Royle, ). However, these methods may be reliable only under specific circumstances, and often only as indices of relative abundance (Barker, Schofield, Link, & Sauer, ; Gopalaswamy, Delampady, Karanth, Kumar, & Macdonald, ). Alternatively, random encounter models directly estimate density using ideal gas law principles of particle movement (Nakashima, Fukasawa, & Samejima, ; Rowcliffe, Field, Turvey, & Carbone, ).…”

Estimating carnivore community structures

“…Consequently, the quality of the data and robustness of science behind the data are crucial not only to follow an adaptive management framework, but also to build support and acceptance for management decisions and policies. Otherwise, incorrect density estimates (e.g., inflated numbers) could lead to misinterpretations of the impact of management interventions, undesirable steps in the decision-making process or can even place species at risk42. The rise of spatially explicit modelling approaches (SCR, SMR, SC), however, facilitates the estimation of densities and the uncertainty around estimates, for populations and communities, including those species where individuals can not be identified.…”

FORUM: Ecologists need robust survey designs, sampling and analytical methods

“…Gopalaswamy et al . () illustrate that such validation will yield poor inferences unless all the sampled parameters lie within a limited range, potentially leading to an enormous waste of resources for little gain in ecological inference.…”