Do capture and survey methods influence whether marked animals are representative of unmarked animals?

Abstract

Radiocollared animals are frequently used to estimate detection probabilities in aerial surveys. The aircraft used to conduct these surveys may also have been used to aid in the capture of these animals, and recently captured animals may react to hearing or seeing the aircraft, changing their behavior in a way that calls into question the representativeness of estimated detection probabilities. We conducted a literature review and found 30 studies that used radiocollared animals to build sightability detection models; in !15 of these studies, the same aircraft was used to capture and survey animals. Although it is difficult to determine whether captured animals have different sighting probabilities than the rest of the target population, we used multiyear resighting data collected from moose (Alces alces) in Minnesota, elk (Cervus elaphus) in Washington, and mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) in Washington and Alaska, to evaluate whether detection probabilities increased or decreased as a function of time since original capture. We did not detect statistically significant within-individual time trends in detection probabilities, although we could not rule out the possibility of biologically significant results because confidence intervals on effect sizes were relatively wide. The lone exception to this rule was for the cohort of radiocollared moose in Minnesota, which exhibited a slight decrease in detection probabilities over time. Differences in detection probabilities for marked and unmarked animals may not be a significant problem for sightability models, provided that the source of the variability can be captured by model covariates (e.g., heterogeneity is tied to an individual's propensity to be in heavy cover). Nonetheless, capture-related effects likely deserve greater consideration than currently afforded, and are critically important when applying simple mark-recapture abundance estimators (Lincoln-Petersen, markresight) that do not allow consideration of sighting covariates. Ó 2015 The Wildlife Society.

Integrating distance sampling with minimum counts to improve monitoring

“…The ability to estimate sightability without handling animals could be particularly important for species of concern because capture operations pose some risks to individual animals (Côté et al , Cattet et al , Webb et al ) and researchers. In addition, the information from the distance survey contributes directly to estimation of the primary parameter of interest (i.e., abundance) and avoids the potential problem of an unrepresentative marked sample (e.g., Fieberg et al ). Furthermore, sightability estimates are at risk of negative bias if unmodeled heterogeneity in detection probability occurs (Borchers et al ).…”

An on-ice aerial survey of the Kane Basin polar bear (Ursus maritimus) subpopulation

“…However, we do not believe that trap shyness is an important factor in aerial surveys of polar bears given most bears were stationary or walking when first observed. Fieberg et al ( 2015 ) conducted a meta-analysis of potential behavioral responses of previously marked ungulates during aerial surveys and likewise concluded there were no behavioral effects. Furthermore, physical sampling that occurred during the 2014 aerial survey in KB consisted of biopsy darting, not physical captures.…”

Detectability and impact of repetitive surveys on threatened West African crocodylians

“…And, in fact, repetitive surveys are already regularly employed in crocodylian monitoring programs to overcome detection biases (Fukuda et al, 2013; Messel et al, 1981; Webb et al, 2000). However, it is not yet known whether repeat surveys over a relatively short period of time actually improve detectability of crocodylians or increase wariness, which could lead to decreases in detection probability (Fieberg et al, 2015) due to increased submergence and other fleeing/evasive behaviors. This is all further complicated by anthropogenic pressures on these species, which can drastically influence the behavior of crocodylians (Lang, 1987; Pacheco, 1996a).…”