2018
DOI: 10.1002/ecy.2362
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the robustness of N‐mixture models

Abstract: N-mixture models provide an appealing alternative to mark-recapture models, in that they allow for estimation of detection probability and population size from count data, without requiring that individual animals be identified. There is, however, a cost to using the N-mixture models: inference is very sensitive to the model's assumptions. We consider the effects of three violations of assumptions that might reasonably be expected in practice: double counting, unmodeled variation in population size over time, … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

6
132
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 129 publications
(148 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
6
132
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The trade‐off between data collection and the complexity of analytical modelling often decides how ecologists approach a question, and ever more complex modelling is not the solution to all questions (Field, Gjerdrum, & Elphick, ). We agree with the valid concerns on the use of N‐mixture models, and we simply argue that the unique characteristics of a stopover population and intensive daily surveys may provide the “adequate” (Link et al., ) or “better quality” (Barker et al., ) data that this modelling approach requires. When the population lacks uniquely identifiable individuals and mark–resight methods are impractical, generalized N‐mixture models can estimate daily abundances of unmarked migratory populations at a staging site, using environmental effects and temporal trends to predict detection probability and immigration rate, on an important condition that there are adequate data.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 77%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The trade‐off between data collection and the complexity of analytical modelling often decides how ecologists approach a question, and ever more complex modelling is not the solution to all questions (Field, Gjerdrum, & Elphick, ). We agree with the valid concerns on the use of N‐mixture models, and we simply argue that the unique characteristics of a stopover population and intensive daily surveys may provide the “adequate” (Link et al., ) or “better quality” (Barker et al., ) data that this modelling approach requires. When the population lacks uniquely identifiable individuals and mark–resight methods are impractical, generalized N‐mixture models can estimate daily abundances of unmarked migratory populations at a staging site, using environmental effects and temporal trends to predict detection probability and immigration rate, on an important condition that there are adequate data.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 77%
“…() nicely summarized the fast‐developing suite of N‐mixture models extended to handle the overdispersion or spatial correlation of counts, open population assumptions and a varying degree of survey frequency, and compared those to established methods such as GLMs and distance sampling. At the same time, recent studies raised significant caution of over‐fitting N‐mixture models in regard of the model's key assumptions (Barker, Schofield, Link, & Sauer, ; Dennis, Morgan, & Ridout, ; Duarte, Adams, & Peterson, ; Kéry, ; Link, Schofield, Barker, & Sauer, ). We are addressing each of these assumptions below.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…No model received unequivocal support, so we model‐averaged the predicted abundance values for each site across the top three models (Tables and ). Due to the potential limitations of this modelling approach given the use of unmarked animals and its sensitivity to statistical assumptions (Barker, Schofield, Link, & Sauer, ; Link, Schofield, Barker, & Sauer, ; but see Kéry, ), these predicted values were interpreted as relative abundances, rather than absolute abundances. Detection probabilities for each survey method were also estimated using model‐averaging.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the last decade, the application of N ‐mixture models (Royle ), which use repeated count data without the need of individual capture and identification, seem to give great advantages for estimating population size with reduced field effort. N ‐mixture models received a great interest in the last few years and their reliability has been evaluated by simulation studies, casting doubts on the usefulness of these models because of parameter identifiability problems, in particular in the presence of assumption violations and unmodeled heterogeneity in the abundance or the detection parameter (Barker et al , Link et al ). However, Kéry () showed how binomial N ‐mixture model estimates are in agreement with those obtained with a hierarchical variant of a capture‐recapture model.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%