Using an individual-based model to assess common biases in lek-based count data to estimate population trajectories of lesser prairie-chickens.
Beth E Ross, Daniel S Sullins, David A Haukos
PLoS ONE · 2019
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0217172 (opens in a new tab)
We email you when a new notice or a question about this paper appears.
Abstract
Researchers and managers are often interested in monitoring the underlying state of a population (e.g., abundance), yet error in the observation process might mask underlying changes due to imperfect detection and availability for sampling. Additional heterogeneity can be introduced into a monitoring program when male-based surveys are used as an index for the total population. Often, male-based surveys are used for avian species, as males are conspicuous and more easily monitored than females. To determine if male-based lek surveys capture changes or trends in population abundance based on female survival and reproduction, we developed a virtual ecologist approach using the lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) as an example. Our approach used an individual-based model to simulate lek counts based on female vital rate data, included models where detection and lek attendance probabilities were <1, and was analyzed using both unadjusted counts and an N-mixture model to compare estimates of population abundance and growth rates. Using lek counts to estimate population growth rates without accounting for detection probability or density-based lek attendance consistently biased population growth rates and abundance estimates. Our results therefore suggest that lek-based surveys used without accounting for lek attendance and detection probability may miss important trends in population changes. Rather than population-level inference, lek-based surveys not accounting for lek attendance and detection probability may instead be better for inferring broad-scale range shifts of lesser prairie-chicken populations in a presence/absence framework.
Abstract licence: CC0
References40
40 more references, whose wording the paper’s licence keeps private.
Reads
Read by people on this page
None yet.
Checked or read by AI through naulon
None yet.
A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.
Are you an author?
Is this your paper?
Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.