Loading…
Revisiting the effect of capture heterogeneity on survival estimates in capture-mark-recapture studies: does it matter?
Recently developed capture-mark-recapture methods allow us to account for capture heterogeneity among individuals in the form of discrete mixtures and continuous individual random effects. In this article, we used simulations and two case studies to evaluate the effectiveness of continuously distrib...
Saved in:
Published in: | PloS one 2013-04, Vol.8 (4), p.e62636-e62636 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c526t-ff77ee6e2d2a35a11c7d87e66ad1b1d9c097ed9c9486d379ff75665ae8ee46933 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c526t-ff77ee6e2d2a35a11c7d87e66ad1b1d9c097ed9c9486d379ff75665ae8ee46933 |
container_end_page | e62636 |
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | e62636 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 8 |
creator | Abadi, Fitsum Botha, Andre Altwegg, Res |
description | Recently developed capture-mark-recapture methods allow us to account for capture heterogeneity among individuals in the form of discrete mixtures and continuous individual random effects. In this article, we used simulations and two case studies to evaluate the effectiveness of continuously distributed individual random effects at removing potential bias due to capture heterogeneity, and to evaluate in what situation the added complexity of these models is justified. Simulations and case studies showed that ignoring individual capture heterogeneity generally led to a small negative bias in survival estimates and that individual random effects effectively removed this bias. As expected, accounting for capture heterogeneity also led to slightly less precise survival estimates. Our case studies also showed that accounting for capture heterogeneity increased in importance towards the end of study. Though ignoring capture heterogeneity led to a small bias in survival estimates, such bias may greatly impact management decisions. We advocate reducing potential heterogeneity at the sampling design stage. Where this is insufficient, we recommend modelling individual capture heterogeneity in situations such as when a large proportion of the individuals has a low detection probability (e.g. in the presence of floaters) and situations where the most recent survival estimates are of great interest (e.g. in applied conservation). |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0062636 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1348122985</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_5e80dcd33ac04441aaee7e9e43d60a5b</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2959923911</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c526t-ff77ee6e2d2a35a11c7d87e66ad1b1d9c097ed9c9486d379ff75665ae8ee46933</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkltvEzEQhVcIREvhHyCwxEtfNtjry655KEIVl0qVkBA8WxN7NnHYrIPtDeq_r9MkVYt4Gsv-zvHM6FTVa0ZnjLfs_SpMcYRhtgkjzihVjeLqSXXKNG9q1VD-9MH5pHqR0opSyTulnlcnDVdCMc5Oq78_cOuTz35ckLxEgn2PNpPQEwubPEUkS8wYwwJH9PmGhJGkKW79FgaCKfs1ZEzEj0e8XkP8XUc8qlOenMf0gbiw4zIpguL38WX1rIch4atDPat-ffn88_Jbff3969Xlp-vaykbluu_bFlFh4xrgEhizretaVAocmzOnLdUtlqJFpxxvdeGlUhKwQxRKc35Wvd37boaQzGFnyTAuOtY0upOFuNoTLsDKbGIZKd6YAN7cXYS4MBCztwMaiR111nEOlgohGABiixoFd4qCnBevi8Nv03yNzuKYIwyPTB-_jH5pFmFruOJaK1EMzg8GMfyZyoLN2ieLwwAjhumub021lJoV9N0_6P-nE3vKxpBSxP6-GUbNLkdHldnlyBxyVGRvHg5yLzoGh98CKt7J0A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1348122985</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Revisiting the effect of capture heterogeneity on survival estimates in capture-mark-recapture studies: does it matter?</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Abadi, Fitsum ; Botha, Andre ; Altwegg, Res</creator><creatorcontrib>Abadi, Fitsum ; Botha, Andre ; Altwegg, Res</creatorcontrib><description>Recently developed capture-mark-recapture methods allow us to account for capture heterogeneity among individuals in the form of discrete mixtures and continuous individual random effects. In this article, we used simulations and two case studies to evaluate the effectiveness of continuously distributed individual random effects at removing potential bias due to capture heterogeneity, and to evaluate in what situation the added complexity of these models is justified. Simulations and case studies showed that ignoring individual capture heterogeneity generally led to a small negative bias in survival estimates and that individual random effects effectively removed this bias. As expected, accounting for capture heterogeneity also led to slightly less precise survival estimates. Our case studies also showed that accounting for capture heterogeneity increased in importance towards the end of study. Though ignoring capture heterogeneity led to a small bias in survival estimates, such bias may greatly impact management decisions. We advocate reducing potential heterogeneity at the sampling design stage. Where this is insufficient, we recommend modelling individual capture heterogeneity in situations such as when a large proportion of the individuals has a low detection probability (e.g. in the presence of floaters) and situations where the most recent survival estimates are of great interest (e.g. in applied conservation).</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062636</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23646131</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Animals ; Bias ; Biodiversity ; Biology ; Biometrics ; Capture-recapture studies ; Case studies ; Computer Science ; Computer Simulation ; Conservation ; Demography ; Ecology ; Economic models ; Estimates ; Floaters ; Heterogeneity ; Models, Statistical ; Probability ; Sampling designs ; Simulation ; Studies ; Survival</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2013-04, Vol.8 (4), p.e62636-e62636</ispartof><rights>2013 Abadi et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2013 Abadi et al 2013 Abadi et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c526t-ff77ee6e2d2a35a11c7d87e66ad1b1d9c097ed9c9486d379ff75665ae8ee46933</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c526t-ff77ee6e2d2a35a11c7d87e66ad1b1d9c097ed9c9486d379ff75665ae8ee46933</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1348122985/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1348122985?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,25731,27901,27902,36989,36990,44566,53766,53768,74869</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23646131$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Abadi, Fitsum</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Botha, Andre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Altwegg, Res</creatorcontrib><title>Revisiting the effect of capture heterogeneity on survival estimates in capture-mark-recapture studies: does it matter?</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Recently developed capture-mark-recapture methods allow us to account for capture heterogeneity among individuals in the form of discrete mixtures and continuous individual random effects. In this article, we used simulations and two case studies to evaluate the effectiveness of continuously distributed individual random effects at removing potential bias due to capture heterogeneity, and to evaluate in what situation the added complexity of these models is justified. Simulations and case studies showed that ignoring individual capture heterogeneity generally led to a small negative bias in survival estimates and that individual random effects effectively removed this bias. As expected, accounting for capture heterogeneity also led to slightly less precise survival estimates. Our case studies also showed that accounting for capture heterogeneity increased in importance towards the end of study. Though ignoring capture heterogeneity led to a small bias in survival estimates, such bias may greatly impact management decisions. We advocate reducing potential heterogeneity at the sampling design stage. Where this is insufficient, we recommend modelling individual capture heterogeneity in situations such as when a large proportion of the individuals has a low detection probability (e.g. in the presence of floaters) and situations where the most recent survival estimates are of great interest (e.g. in applied conservation).</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Biology</subject><subject>Biometrics</subject><subject>Capture-recapture studies</subject><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Computer Science</subject><subject>Computer Simulation</subject><subject>Conservation</subject><subject>Demography</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Economic models</subject><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>Floaters</subject><subject>Heterogeneity</subject><subject>Models, Statistical</subject><subject>Probability</subject><subject>Sampling designs</subject><subject>Simulation</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Survival</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNptkltvEzEQhVcIREvhHyCwxEtfNtjry655KEIVl0qVkBA8WxN7NnHYrIPtDeq_r9MkVYt4Gsv-zvHM6FTVa0ZnjLfs_SpMcYRhtgkjzihVjeLqSXXKNG9q1VD-9MH5pHqR0opSyTulnlcnDVdCMc5Oq78_cOuTz35ckLxEgn2PNpPQEwubPEUkS8wYwwJH9PmGhJGkKW79FgaCKfs1ZEzEj0e8XkP8XUc8qlOenMf0gbiw4zIpguL38WX1rIch4atDPat-ffn88_Jbff3969Xlp-vaykbluu_bFlFh4xrgEhizretaVAocmzOnLdUtlqJFpxxvdeGlUhKwQxRKc35Wvd37boaQzGFnyTAuOtY0upOFuNoTLsDKbGIZKd6YAN7cXYS4MBCztwMaiR111nEOlgohGABiixoFd4qCnBevi8Nv03yNzuKYIwyPTB-_jH5pFmFruOJaK1EMzg8GMfyZyoLN2ieLwwAjhumub021lJoV9N0_6P-nE3vKxpBSxP6-GUbNLkdHldnlyBxyVGRvHg5yLzoGh98CKt7J0A</recordid><startdate>20130430</startdate><enddate>20130430</enddate><creator>Abadi, Fitsum</creator><creator>Botha, Andre</creator><creator>Altwegg, Res</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130430</creationdate><title>Revisiting the effect of capture heterogeneity on survival estimates in capture-mark-recapture studies: does it matter?</title><author>Abadi, Fitsum ; Botha, Andre ; Altwegg, Res</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c526t-ff77ee6e2d2a35a11c7d87e66ad1b1d9c097ed9c9486d379ff75665ae8ee46933</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Biology</topic><topic>Biometrics</topic><topic>Capture-recapture studies</topic><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Computer Science</topic><topic>Computer Simulation</topic><topic>Conservation</topic><topic>Demography</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Economic models</topic><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>Floaters</topic><topic>Heterogeneity</topic><topic>Models, Statistical</topic><topic>Probability</topic><topic>Sampling designs</topic><topic>Simulation</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Survival</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Abadi, Fitsum</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Botha, Andre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Altwegg, Res</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Abadi, Fitsum</au><au>Botha, Andre</au><au>Altwegg, Res</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Revisiting the effect of capture heterogeneity on survival estimates in capture-mark-recapture studies: does it matter?</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2013-04-30</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>e62636</spage><epage>e62636</epage><pages>e62636-e62636</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Recently developed capture-mark-recapture methods allow us to account for capture heterogeneity among individuals in the form of discrete mixtures and continuous individual random effects. In this article, we used simulations and two case studies to evaluate the effectiveness of continuously distributed individual random effects at removing potential bias due to capture heterogeneity, and to evaluate in what situation the added complexity of these models is justified. Simulations and case studies showed that ignoring individual capture heterogeneity generally led to a small negative bias in survival estimates and that individual random effects effectively removed this bias. As expected, accounting for capture heterogeneity also led to slightly less precise survival estimates. Our case studies also showed that accounting for capture heterogeneity increased in importance towards the end of study. Though ignoring capture heterogeneity led to a small bias in survival estimates, such bias may greatly impact management decisions. We advocate reducing potential heterogeneity at the sampling design stage. Where this is insufficient, we recommend modelling individual capture heterogeneity in situations such as when a large proportion of the individuals has a low detection probability (e.g. in the presence of floaters) and situations where the most recent survival estimates are of great interest (e.g. in applied conservation).</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>23646131</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0062636</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2013-04, Vol.8 (4), p.e62636-e62636 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1348122985 |
source | Publicly Available Content Database; PubMed Central |
subjects | Algorithms Animals Bias Biodiversity Biology Biometrics Capture-recapture studies Case studies Computer Science Computer Simulation Conservation Demography Ecology Economic models Estimates Floaters Heterogeneity Models, Statistical Probability Sampling designs Simulation Studies Survival |
title | Revisiting the effect of capture heterogeneity on survival estimates in capture-mark-recapture studies: does it matter? |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-12T17%3A58%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Revisiting%20the%20effect%20of%20capture%20heterogeneity%20on%20survival%20estimates%20in%20capture-mark-recapture%20studies:%20does%20it%20matter?&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Abadi,%20Fitsum&rft.date=2013-04-30&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=e62636&rft.epage=e62636&rft.pages=e62636-e62636&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0062636&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_plos_%3E2959923911%3C/proquest_plos_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c526t-ff77ee6e2d2a35a11c7d87e66ad1b1d9c097ed9c9486d379ff75665ae8ee46933%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1348122985&rft_id=info:pmid/23646131&rfr_iscdi=true |