2014
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098840
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reliability of Different Mark-Recapture Methods for Population Size Estimation Tested against Reference Population Sizes Constructed from Field Data

Abstract: Reliable estimates of population size are fundamental in many ecological studies and biodiversity conservation. Selecting appropriate methods to estimate abundance is often very difficult, especially if data are scarce. Most studies concerning the reliability of different estimators used simulation data based on assumptions about capture variability that do not necessarily reflect conditions in natural populations. Here, we used data from an intensively studied closed population of the arboreal gecko Gehyra va… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
36
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(39 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
3
36
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This estimator was already proven to fit our data set particularly well (Grimm et al. ). We further determined the coefficient of variation (CV) describing the individual heterogeneity present per year (Chao et al.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 55%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This estimator was already proven to fit our data set particularly well (Grimm et al. ). We further determined the coefficient of variation (CV) describing the individual heterogeneity present per year (Chao et al.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 55%
“…We estimated annual population sizes using the first sample coverage estimator accounting for individual heterogeneity (Lee and Chao 1994) as implemented in CARE-2 (Chao and Yang 2003). This estimator was already proven to fit our data set particularly well (Grimm et al 2014). We further determined the coefficient of variation (CV) describing the individual heterogeneity present per year (Chao et al 1992, Lee andChao 1994).…”
Section: Population Sizementioning
confidence: 99%
“…This was evident from the internationally coordinated survey in spring 2015, where subsequent surveys showed that the population count must have been too low (see http://pinkfootedgoose.aewa.info/node/195). Nonetheless, throughout the African-Eurasian region, such counts are the standard way of monitoring waterbird populations according to AEWA guidelines (AEWA 2005), and alternative measures of population size obtained from capture-mark-recapture methods or bag indices are often characterised by large annual fluctuations and associated with a number of assumptions that are rarely met (Ganter & Madsen 2001;Imperio et al 2010;Grimm, Gruber & Henle 2014). The pink-footed goose count is coordinated both locally and internationally and carried out by experienced observers with many years of training in counting geese.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One critical assumption is whether capture probability is constant or changes with time or among individuals. Whenever capture probability is expected to vary, models accounting for individual heterogeneity perform best, while Peterson–Lincoln's formula tends to underestimate population size (Grimm, Gruber & Henle, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 55%