Evaluating and integrating spatial capture–recapture models with data of variable individual identifiability. Issue 7 (11th August 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ruprecht, Joel S.; Eriksson, Charlotte E.; Forrester, Tavis D.; Clark, Darren A.; Wisdom, Michael J.; Rowland, Mary M.; Johnson, Bruce K.; Levi, Taal
• Is Part Of: Ecological applications. Volume 31:Issue 7(2021)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2021-08-11
• Subjects: abundance -- black bear -- bobcat -- camera trapping -- carnivore -- cougar -- count -- coyote -- density estimation -- mark–resight -- noninvasive genetic sampling -- spatial capture–recapture; Ecology -- Periodicals; Environmental protection -- Periodicals; Biology, Economic -- Periodicals; 577.05
• DOI: 10.1002/eap.2405
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1051-0761

Abstract

Abstract: Spatial capture–recapture (SCR) models have become the preferred tool for estimating densities of carnivores. Within this family of models are variants requiring identification of all individuals in each encounter (SCR), a subset of individuals only (generalized spatial mark–resight, gSMR), or no individual identification (spatial count or spatial presence–absence). Although each technique has been shown through simulation to yield unbiased results, the consistency and relative precision of estimates across methods in real‐world settings are seldom considered. We tested a suite of models ranging from those only requiring detections of unmarked individuals to others that integrate remote camera, physical capture, genetic, and global positioning system (GPS) data into a hybrid model, to estimate population densities of black bears, bobcats, cougars, and coyotes. For each species, we genotyped fecal DNA collected with detection dogs during a 20‐d period. A subset of individuals from each species was affixed with GPS collars bearing unique markings and resighted by remote cameras over 140 d contemporaneous with scat collection. Camera‐based gSMR models produced density estimates that differed by <10% from genetic SCR for bears, cougars, and coyotes once important sources of variation (sex or behavioral status) were controlled for. For bobcats, SCR estimates were 33% higher than gSMR. The cause of the discrepancies in estimates was likely attributable to challenges designing a study compatible for species with disparate home range sizes and the difficulty of collecting sufficient data in a timeframe in which demographic closure could be assumed. Unmarked models estimated densities that varied greatly from SCR, but estimates became more consistent in models wherein more individuals were identifiable. Hybrid models containing all data sources exhibited the most precise estimates for all species. For studies in which only sparse data can be obtained and the strictest model assumptions are unlikely to be met, we suggest researchers use caution making inference from models lacking individual identity. For best results, we further recommend the use of methods requiring at least a subset of the population is marked and that multiple data sets are incorporated when possible.