Comparing methods of estimating carnivore diets with uncertainty and imperfect detection

Abstract

Carnivore diet‐selection studies based on scat analyses are frequently used to elucidate predator ecology, predict potential effects on prey populations, and inform management decisions. However, accuracy of results and the following inference are contingent on multiple sources of sampling error including missed detections and pseudoreplication in statistical comparisons that assume independence within scat samples. We compared a repeated‐sampling occupancy framework intended to estimate detection and occurrence rates for diet items with a multinomial modeling approach intended to estimate diet selection while accounting for nonindependence of diet items within samples. Both methods allowed for multimodel inference to specifically test hypotheses about differences in diet. We applied each method to 2 example data sets, a bobcat (Lynx rufus) scat data set (n = 101) collected in western Virginia, USA, from 2011 to 2013 with morphological identification of diet items, and a coyote (Canis latrans) scat data set (n = 50) collected in Tooele County, Utah, USA, in 2014 with molecular identification of diet items, and compared results with those commonly implemented in diet studies (frequency of occurrence calculations). We found imperfect detection of diet items was not a major source of bias in either the morphological or molecular data set results, but grouping similar or indistinguishable diet items in the morphological data set affected estimates when there was heterogeneity in detection among items. Using the occupancy approach on the morphological data set demonstrated that presence or amount of some diet items could decrease detection of other items and bias occurrence estimates. Furthermore, comparing multiple models of bobcat diet using Akaike's Information Criterion with either approach revealed no support for seasonal differences, even though traditional frequency of occurrence calculations differed by almost 10%. Thus, we suggest even moderate trends in diet based on frequency of occurrence calculations without incorporating measures of uncertainty may represent sampling error, and not true differences in diet. When detection is not conditional on other diet items, comparison of multinomial models will typically be sufficient to make accurate inference about carnivore diets without requiring additional processing of scat samples. © 2019 The Wildlife Society.

Coyote diet in North America: geographic and ecological patterns during range expansion

“…meta-barcoding) may reduce sources of bias in some cases. For example, Morin et al (2019) found that detectability can vary among food items when using morphometrics, for example, deer hair can dominate a sample and obscure the presence of small mammal hair.…”

Experimental feeding validates nanofluidic array technology for DNA detection of ungulate prey in wolf scats

“…Sometimes, when empirical data on sensitivity was not available through controlled conditions, statistical approaches were used to account for false‐positive and false‐negative errors (Chambert et al, 2015; Lahoz‐Monfort et al, 2016). Detection probability of DNA methods has been indirectly estimated with capture‐mark‐recapture or occupancy modeling for species detection from eDNA samples (Abrams et al, 2019; Broadhurst et al, 2021; Sales et al, 2020; Smith & Goldberg, 2020), as well as for prey detection in predator scats (Morin et al, 2019).…”

Combining stable isotopes, morphological, and molecular analyses to reconstruct the diet of free‐ranging consumers

“…This also highlights that DNA degradation can happens quite fast despite samples being in a cold environment. Again, this emphasizes the need to collect feces as fresh as possible and to set correction metrics and models for false negative or imperfect detection (Alberdi et al, 2019;Monterroso et al, 2019;Morin et al, 2019).…”

“…Qualitative estimates such as frequency of occurrence are also useful to document the range of potential food sources for a given species (Klare et al, 2011). Independently of the metrics used, dietary estimates derived from morphological analyses could be biased by differential digestibility of food items and low occurrence of certain food sources resulting in false negatives or unidentifiable items (Morin et al, 2019;Steenweg et al, 2015). For instance, although behavioral observations often reveal predation by rodents on the eggs of seabirds, it is difficult to accurately assess the importance and occurrence of this food source because eggshells and yolk rarely leave remains in feces of rodents (Drever, Blight, Hobson, & Bertram, 2000).…”