Comparison of Two Double-Observer Point-Count Approaches for Estimating Breeding Bird Abundance

Abstract

Point counts are one of the most widely used and efficient approaches to survey land‐bird populations. A new approach to point‐count surveys involves the use of 2 observers, which allows the calculation of a detection probability for each bird species. Detection probabilities derived from 2 observers permit investigators to calculate a corrected abundance estimate that accounts for birds present but not detected. We evaluated 2 double‐observer point count approaches: the dependent‐observer approach and the independent‐observer approach. The dependent‐observer approach involves 2 observers recording data together on a single data sheet with one observer designated the primary observer and the other designated as the secondary observer. The primary observer verbally dictates the number of each species detected while the secondary observer records this information; the secondary observer also records birds that the primary observer did not detect. The independent‐observer approach involves 2 observers recording data independently on separate data sheets without verbal communication between observers. This study compares the detection probabilities and associated levels of precision generated by both double‐observer approaches to ascertain which technique generates data that are more accurate and more feasible to apply in the field. We conducted point counts at 137 point locations in northern West Virginia during the spring of 2000 and 2001 using both double‐observer approaches. We generated detection probabilities and abundances from data collected using both double‐observer approaches using program DOBSERV. The dependent‐observer approach resulted in higher observer‐specific and joint detection probabilities, as well as lower standard errors of detection probability across most cover types. Species‐specific detection probabilities were higher across all cover types under the dependent‐observer approach. Given the higher detection probabilities and associated precision combined with fewer logistical constraints, we suggest that the dependent‐observer approach be used when investigators are interested in surveying birds using point counts.

Pengaruh kekayaan jenis tumbuhan sumber pakan terhadap keanekaragaman burung herbivora di Taman Nasional Bantimurung Bulusaraung, Sulawesi Selatan

“…Lokasi penelitian terletak pada (i) blok hutan Karaenta yang merupakan hutan sekunder tua yang merupakan zona inti TN Babul, (ii) (Danielsen et al 2010). Untuk menghindari bias, maka pengamatan burung pada keempat lokasi dilakukan oleh orang-orang yang sama (Peh et al 2005;Forcey et al 2006;Elphick 2008). Pengamatan dilakukan dengan cara berjalan kaki menelusuri transek dengan arah memotong kontur.…”

Detection biases yield misleading patterns of species persistence and colonization in fragmented landscapes

“…The extent of bias was even more severe when data were analyzed using just one annual point count (not shown), as per the practice described by Bibby et al (1992) and recommended in Ralph et al (1995). This is of important concern when considering that using just one annual or seasonal point count is the most widely applied protocol for monitoring bird communities (Forcey et al 2006). Our results lend support to the utility of dynamic, multispecies occupancy models to characterize spatial patterns of habitat use across species within a community (Russell et al 2009, Ruiz-Gutierrez et al 2010.…”

Investigating bird call identification uncertainty using data from processed audio recordings

“…However, in the more open non-forest habitats visual information may be more important for species identification. It would be useful to investigate agreement/ disagreement levels between field observers, perhaps using the double-observer count method (Nichols et al 2000;Forcey et al 2006) or similar, and compare the results to those from processed ARD recordings.…”