Sample Size in Petersen Mark–Recapture Experiments

Robson, D. S.; Regier, Henry A.

doi:10.1577/1548-8659(1964)93[215:ssipme]2.0.co;2

Cited by 238 publications

(195 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

191

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Population size was estimated using the triple catch method and tested by Peterson's estimate (Begon 1979). Confidence Intervals (CI) of 95% were calculated according to Robson & Regier (1964); a t-test was applied to examine differences in SCL, PL and body mass (BM) between sexes.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Population estimate and body size of European pond turtles (Emys orbicularis) from Pazarağaç (Afyonkarahisar/Turkey)

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data on population size, adult sex ratio, body size and mass are provided for a population of the turtle Emys orbicularis near Pazaragaç (Afyonkarahisar/Turkey). Using the mark-recapture method (triple catch), a population size of 664 turtles was estimated (95% confidence interval, range 332-996), corresponding to a density of 83 turtles per hectare (range 41.5-124.5). The adult sex-ratio was significantly skewed in favor of males (2.02 males : 1 female; P < 0.001). Almost all recorded specimens were adult (98.1%). Mean straight carapace length (SCL) and body mass (BM) of adult turtles were: SCL = 128.65 mm, BM = 345 g for males (n = 168) and SCL = 135.37 mm, BM = 463 g for females (n = 83).

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Population estimate and body size of European pond turtles (Emys orbicularis) from Pazarağaç (Afyonkarahisar/Turkey)

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, sample size would need to be large enough to draw conclusions concerning population dynamics. Robson & Regier (1964) recommend an accuracy of 0.5 (confidence limits of 0.5 N, 1.5 N) for preliminary studies, 0.25 for management work, and 0.1 for studies into population dynamics. An accuracy of 0.1 will require sample sizes of 900 to 1200 per sampling occasion (i.e.…”

Section: 'Best' Estimates Considerations and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An accuracy of 0.1 will require sample sizes of 900 to 1200 per sampling occasion (i.e. year) for a population of 5000 animals, depending on the estimation methods (Robson & Regier 1964). It seems likely that this endangered population is recovering; however, much more work is required before the extent and rate of the recovery is known.…”

Section: 'Best' Estimates Considerations and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimates of humpback whale abundance off Kauai, 1989 to 1993:evaluating biases associated with sampling the Hawaiian Islands breeding assemblage

Cerchio¹

1998

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Identification photographs of humpback whales Megaptera novaeangljae, collected off Kauai during the years 1989 to 1993, were used to estimate population abundance off the Hawaiian Islands, USA A total of 790 different individuals (988 different observations) were identified during the study. Several mark-recapture procedures were applied to the data using closed population models (Chapman's modified Petersen, weighted mean of the Petersen. Darroch's maximum likelihood estimator [MLE], and Chao's M,, M,, and M,,, estimators) and an open population model (Fisher-Ford estimator). The majority of population estimates were between 2000 and SO00 animals, with broad and overlapping 95% confidence intervals. Inconsistencies in pair-wise Petersen estimates and poor fit to the Fisher-Ford model indicated that the populat~on of ind~v~duals was not identical for each sampling occasion. As a pnmary example of this, it is suggested that individuals captured in 1992 had a lower probability of capture in other years examined. Possibly the greatest problems In estimating abundance of this population dealt with temporary emigration and non-random mixing of the population between sampling occasions. After considering the range of estimates, and potential biases in the data set. I suggest that the abundance of humpback whales off the Hawaiian Islands is likely close to 4000 individuals, and most probably between 3000 and 5000. These estimates are considerably greater than those generated in the late 1970s and early 1980s and, if accurate, would indicate growth of the population over the past decade; however, it is strongly recommended that more representative and precise estimates be obtained for management purposes.

show abstract

“…Model bias was approximated for values of N ranging from 0 to 1000 and specifically with respect to the value of N derived by Blaylock & Hoggard (1994) for the SVS-AH region; given the evidence of community structure in SVS-AH, their estimate (N = 387) was proportioned by the surface area ratio for each survey area (N = 269.03 for the eastern and N = 119.97 for the western areas, respectively). The bias of Ñ was deemed to be negligible if the approximate bias was small (< 2%;Robson & Regier 1964).If we assume that the probability of capture is independent of whether or not an individual has long lasting marks (Hammond 1990, Williams et al 1993, we can expand our estimate to include the nondistinc- tive population. We achieved this by calculating the ratio (θ) of distinctive dolphins to total dolphins encountered during the study from all photos that met or exceeded photo quality thresholds.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, because the capture probabilities during the capture sampling occasion may have been inflated due to extremely favorable sighting conditions and because the population may not have been closed, the derived estimate of abundance of 111 (71 to 150) is only valid for the capture sampling occasion February 3 to 4, 2008 (Table 2, Fig. 8; Robson & Regier 1964, Seber 1982. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Community structure and abundance of bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus in coastal waters of the northeast Gulf of Mexico

Tyson¹,

Nowacek²,

Nowacek³

2011

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus community structure and abundance in the northeast Gulf of Mexico coastal waters stretching from St. Vincent Sound to Alligator Harbor, Florida, USA. Photographic-identification surveys were conducted between May 2004 and October 2006 to gain an understanding of dolphin distribution in this region. Dolphins were distributed year-round throughout the region; however, individual sighting records indicate that 2 parapatric dolphin communities exist. We conducted mark-recapture surveys using photographic-identification techniques to estimate the abundance of dolphins inhabiting the 2 areas these communities reside in: St. Vincent Sound/Apalachicola Bay, western; and St. George Sound/ Alligator Harbor, eastern. Sighting records of individual dolphins from 2004 to 2008 support the existence of 2 communities in these areas; only 3.5% of distinctive dolphins photographed were seen in both western and eastern areas. The 2 communities differ in their structure: the eastern area supports a more transient population with 45.7% of distinctive dolphins photo graphed only once compared with 28.3% in the west. Independent estimates of abundance (N, 95% CI = [low, high]) were calculated using the Chapman modification of the Lincoln-Petersen method for June 2007 and for January and February 2008 for the eastern area (242 [141−343], 395 [273−516]) and for the western survey area (197 [130−264], 111 [71−150]), respectively. Our results serve as a baseline that can be used by the US National Marine Fisheries Service to manage bottlenose dolphins in this region.KEY WORDS: Bottlenose dolphin · Photographic identification · Mark-recapture · Community structure · Abundance Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisherMar Ecol Prog Ser 438: [253][254][255][256][257][258][259][260][261][262][263][264][265] 2011 Bay, Florida ( Photo-identification (photo-ID) methods, which rely on obtaining a photograph of an individual dolphin's natural markings (such as nicks, notches, and/or scars found along the dorsal fin or peduncle), are widely used in the study of bottlenose dolphins. These natural markings are considered to be longlasting, and they have been used successfully to identify individuals and track them over time (Hammond 1990, Wilson et al. 1999. Using photo-ID methods, researchers have found that bottlenose dolphins are distributed relatively continuously in most parts of their range, although within this continuum range boundaries and discrete communities (i.e. resident dolphins that regularly share large portions of their ranges, exhibit similar distinct genetic profiles, and interact with each other to a much greater extent than with dolphins in adjacent waters; Wells et al. 1987) have been defined (Shane 1980, Irvine et al. 1981, Wells 1986, 1991, Wells et al. 1987, Hansen 1990, Shane 1990, Rossbach & Herzing 1999, Chilvers & Corkeron 2003, Lusseau et al. 2005, Fazioli et al. 2006, Balmer et al. 2008, Urian et al. 2009, 2004, and 2005/2...

show abstract

Sample Size in Petersen Mark–Recapture Experiments

Cited by 238 publications

References 3 publications

Population estimate and body size of European pond turtles (Emys orbicularis) from Pazarağaç (Afyonkarahisar/Turkey)

Population estimate and body size of European pond turtles (Emys orbicularis) from Pazarağaç (Afyonkarahisar/Turkey)

Estimates of humpback whale abundance off Kauai, 1989 to 1993:evaluating biases associated with sampling the Hawaiian Islands breeding assemblage

Community structure and abundance of bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus in coastal waters of the northeast Gulf of Mexico

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About