Can time‐to‐detection models with fewer survey replicates provide a robust alternative to traditional site‐occupancy models?

Henry, Dominic A. W.; Lee, Alan T. K.; Altwegg, Res

doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13379

Cited by 14 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…April 2021 TIME-TO-DETECTION OCCUPANCY SURVEYS Article e02267; page 9 low detection probabilities (e.g., the cryptic species of Specht et al [2017] or very inconspicuous species of Henry et al [2020]), where subsequent surveys are likely to discover the species in sites where it was previously undetected. In these instances, it is likely that one could reduce this potential bias by increasing survey duration or by limiting surveys so that they are conducted only under ideal survey conditions, thereby increasing the detection rate and minimizing heterogeneity in time-todetection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other cases, optimization could entail limiting the conditions under which surveys can be conducted, for example, by limiting surveys to a certain time of day or weather conditions. Optimization becomes more difficult for multi-species occupancy surveys (Henry et al 2020) where detectability curves for the same variable often differ among species.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Detections of the species at subsequent surveys increases the minimum proportion of occupied sites, resulting in an increase in the lower limit of the finite‐sample occurrence rate (Royle and Dorazio 2008, Link and Barker 2010), and therefore, a general increase in the location for the posterior distribution for probability of occurrence. We expect that this phenomenon will be especially pronounced for species with low detection probabilities (e.g., the cryptic species of Specht et al [2017] or very inconspicuous species of Henry et al [2020]), where subsequent surveys are likely to discover the species in sites where it was previously undetected. In these instances, it is likely that one could reduce this potential bias by increasing survey duration or by limiting surveys so that they are conducted only under ideal survey conditions, thereby increasing the detection rate and minimizing heterogeneity in time‐to‐detection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3). As information is gained about the detection process, survey protocols can be optimized to minimize time‐to‐detection and maximize detection probability regardless of occupancy study design (Bornand et al 2014, Reich 2020), and multiple time‐to‐detection surveys also could be conducted (Henry et al 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This bias is not unique to time-to-detection methods, however, and any accounting for detection probabilities will improve estimates of occurrence relative to naïve estimates that fail to account for imperfect detectability (Guillera-Arroita et al 2014). Comparisons of time-to-detection methods to repeated-measures designs demonstrated that the former can perform well for plants (Bornand et al 2014) and birds (Henry et al 2020), but rare or inconspicuous species present challenges for time-to-detection methods. Few guidelines exist, however, regarding when to use time-to-detection surveys versus repeated-measures occupancy designs to make the best use of limited funding for surveys.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Time‐to‐detection occupancy methods: performance and utility for improving efficiency of surveys

Halstead

Rose

Kleeman

2021

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Occupancy methods propelled the quantitative study of species distributions forward by separating the observation process, or the imperfect detectability of species, from the ecological processes of interest governing species distributions. Occupancy studies come at a cost, however: the collection of additional data to account for nondetections at sites where the species is present. The most common occupancy designs (repeated measures designs) require repeat visits to sites or the use of multiple observers or detection methods. Time-to-detection methods have been identified as a potentially efficient alternative, requiring only one visit to each site by a single observer. A comparison of time-to-detection methods to repeated measures designs for visual encounter surveys would allow researchers to evaluate whether time-to-detection methods might be appropriate for their study system and can inform optimal survey design. We collected time-todetection data during two different repeated measures design occupancy surveys for four amphibians and compared the performance of time-to-detection methods to the other designs using the location (potential bias) and precision of posterior distributions for occurrence parameters. We further used results of time-to-detection surveys to optimize survey design. Time-to-detection methods performed best for species that are widespread and have high detection probabilities and rates, but performed less well for cryptic species with lower probability of occurrence or whose detection was strongly affected by survey conditions. In all cases single surveys were most efficient in terms of person-hours expended, but under some conditions the survey duration required to achieve high detection probabilities would be prohibitively long for a single survey. Regardless of occupancy survey design, time-to-detection methods provide important information that can be used to optimize surveys, allowing researchers and resource managers to efficiently achieve monitoring and conservation goals. Collecting time-to-detection data while conducting repeated measures occupancy surveys requires only small modifications to field methods but could have large benefits in terms of time spent surveying in the long-term.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Time‐to‐detection occupancy methods: performance and utility for improving efficiency of surveys

Halstead

Rose

Kleeman

2021

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Space‐for‐time is not necessarily a substitution when monitoring the distribution of pelagic fishes in the San Francisco Bay‐Delta

Duarte

Peterson

2021

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Occupancy models are often used to analyze long-term monitoring data to better understand how and why species redistribute across dynamic landscapes while accounting for incomplete capture. However, this approach requires replicate detection/non-detection data at a sample unit and many long-term monitoring programs lack temporal replicate surveys. In such cases, it has been suggested that surveying subunits within a larger sample unit may be an efficient substitution (i.e.

show abstract

Detectability of common ravens (Corvus corax) in the eastern USA: Rapid assessment of a recolonizing species

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Common ravens (Corvus corax) inhabited much of the eastern United States prior to European colonization but were nearly extirpated by the mid‐1900s. Although remnant raven populations have since begun recolonizing portions of their historic range in the eastern United States, the extent of recovery remains largely unknown because of the species' elusive behavior. To aid development of targeted monitoring programs for this rare and cryptic species, we investigated factors that may influence detectability of ravens in natural cliff habitat during the nesting season in the Central Appalachian Mountains. Using a time‐to‐detection framework, we performed surveys at cliff sites with positive raven occupancy and recorded time to first detection (TFD) and confirmed cliff occupancy (i.e., occupied detection) to estimate detection probability curves as a function of survey time. We further compared multiscale habitat features of occupied and unoccupied cliff sites to characterize regional nesting habitat. Mean TFD at occupied cliffs was 14 ± 2 (SE) min. The TFD and subsequent detection probability increased with warming temperatures, likely as a result of heightened activity at nests as the reproductive season progressed. Shorter distances from observation point to the surveyed cliff resulted in longer TFD, indicating that ravens are likely sensitive to disturbance at nest sites. Analysis of cliff‐nesting habitat data identified raven selection of cliffs with large, exposed faces positioned on predominant west‐facing aspects. Mean detection probability calculated from detectability curves was ≥0.8 after the first 30 min. Using a probability‐based model and empirical detection probabilities, we estimated that raven absence from a cliff site during the nesting season may be inferred with p = 0.99 after three independent 30‐min surveys. Although ravens have been considered elusive and rare in the eastern United States, we find that their detectability at occupied cliff sites during the nesting season is relatively high and that observation of distributional changes may be easier for this species than for other, more cryptic birds.

show abstract

Can time‐to‐detection models with fewer survey replicates provide a robust alternative to traditional site‐occupancy models?

Cited by 14 publications

References 25 publications

Time‐to‐detection occupancy methods: performance and utility for improving efficiency of surveys

Time‐to‐detection occupancy methods: performance and utility for improving efficiency of surveys

Space‐for‐time is not necessarily a substitution when monitoring the distribution of pelagic fishes in the San Francisco Bay‐Delta

Detectability of common ravens (Corvus corax) in the eastern USA: Rapid assessment of a recolonizing species

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About