1.Distance sampling is a widely used technique for estimating the size or density of biological populations. Many distance sampling designs and most analyses use the software Distance.2.We briefly review distance sampling and its assumptions, outline the history, structure and capabilities of Distance, and provide hints on its use.3.Good survey design is a crucial prerequisite for obtaining reliable results. Distance has a survey design engine, with a built-in geographic information system, that allows properties of different proposed designs to be examined via simulation, and survey plans to be generated.4.A first step in analysis of distance sampling data is modelling the probability of detection. Distance contains three increasingly sophisticated analysis engines for this: conventional distance sampling, which models detection probability as a function of distance from the transect and assumes all objects at zero distance are detected; multiple-covariate distance sampling, which allows covariates in addition to distance; and mark–recapture distance sampling, which relaxes the assumption of certain detection at zero distance.5.All three engines allow estimation of density or abundance, stratified if required, with associated measures of precision calculated either analytically or via the bootstrap.6.Advanced analysis topics covered include the use of multipliers to allow analysis of indirect surveys (such as dung or nest surveys), the density surface modelling analysis engine for spatial and habitat modelling, and information about accessing the analysis engines directly from other software.7.Synthesis and applications. Distance sampling is a key method for producing abundance and density estimates in challenging field conditions. The theory underlying the methods continues to expand to cope with realistic estimation situations. In step with theoretical developments, state-of-the-art software that implements these methods is described that makes the methods accessible to practising ecologists.

No abstract

Summary1. Our understanding of a biological population can be greatly enhanced by modelling their distribution in space and as a function of environmental covariates. Such models can be used to investigate the relationships between distribution and environmental covariates as well as reliably estimate abundances and create maps of animal/ plant distribution. 2. Density surface models consist of a spatial model of the abundance of a biological population which has been corrected for uncertain detection via distance sampling methods. 3. We review recent developments in the field and consider the likely directions of future research before focussing on a popular approach based on generalized additive models. In particular, we consider spatial modelling techniques that may be advantageous to applied ecologists such as quantification of uncertainty in a two-stage model and smoothing in areas with complex boundaries. 4. The methods discussed are available in an R package developed by the authors (dsm) and are largely implemented in the popular Windows software Distance.

Line transect surveys are widely used for estimating abundance of primate populations. The method relies on a small number of key assumptions, and if these are not met, substantial bias may occur. For a variety of reasons, primate surveys often do not follow what is generally considered to be best practice, either in survey design or in analysis. The design often comprises too few lines (sometimes just 1), subjectively placed or placed along trails, so lacks both randomization and adequate replication. Analysis often involves flawed or inefficient models, and often uses biased estimates of the locations of primate groups relative to the line. We outline the standard method, emphasizing the assumptions underlying the approach. We then consider options for when it is difficult or impossible to meet key assumptions. We explore the performance of these options by simulation, focusing particularly on the analysis of primate group sizes, where many of the variations in survey methods have been developed. We also discuss design issues, field methods, analysis, and potential alternative methodologies for when standard line transect sampling cannot deliver reliable abundance estimates.

Statistical models for estimating absolute densities of field populations of animals have been widely used over the last century in both scientific studies and wildlife management programs. To date, two general classes of density estimation models have been developed: models that use data sets from capture–recapture or removal sampling techniques (often derived from trapping grids) from which separate estimates of population size (NÌ‚) and effective sampling area (AÌ‚) are used to calculate density (DÌ‚ = NÌ‚/AÌ‚); and models applicable to sampling regimes using distance‐sampling theory (typically transect lines or trapping webs) to estimate detection functions and densities directly from the distance data. However, few studies have evaluated these respective models for accuracy, precision, and bias on known field populations, and no studies have been conducted that compare the two approaches under controlled field conditions. In this study, we evaluated both classes of density estimators on known densities of enclosed rodent populations. Test data sets (n = 11) were developed using nine rodent species from capture–recapture live‐trapping on both trapping grids and trapping webs in four replicate 4.2‐ha enclosures on the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge in central New Mexico, USA. Additional “saturation” trapping efforts resulted in an enumeration of the rodent populations in each enclosure, allowing the computation of true densities. Density estimates (DÌ‚) were calculated using program CAPTURE for the grid data sets and program DISTANCE for the web data sets, and these results were compared to the known true densities (D) to evaluate each model's relative mean square error, accuracy, precision, and bias. In addition, we evaluated a variety of approaches to each data set's analysis by having a group of independent expert analysts calculate their best density estimates without a priori knowledge of the true densities; this “blind” test allowed us to evaluate the influence of expertise and experience in calculating density estimates in comparison to simply using default values in programs CAPTURE and DISTANCE. While the rodent sample sizes were considerably smaller than the recommended minimum for good model results, we found that several models performed well empirically, including the web‐based uniform and half‐normal models in program DISTANCE, and the grid‐based models Mb and Mbh in program CAPTURE (with AÌ‚ adjusted by species‐specific full mean maximum distance moved (MMDM) values). These models produced accurate DÌ‚ values (with 95% confidence intervals that included the true D values) and exhibited acceptable bias but poor precision. However, in linear regression analyses comparing each model's DÌ‚ values to the true D values over the range of observed test densities, only the web‐based uniform model exhibited a regression slope near 1.0; all other models showed substantial slope deviations, indicating biased estimates at higher or lower density values. In addition, the grid‐based DÌ‚ analyses using full ...