Free Standard AU & NZ Shipping For All Book Orders Over $80!
Register      Login
Wildlife Research Wildlife Research Society
Ecology, management and conservation in natural and modified habitats
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > WR > WR07034
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 35(4)

Visibility bias in aerial survey: mark–recapture, line-transect or both?

Jeff Laake A , Michelle J. Dawson B and Jim Hone B C
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A National Marine Mammal Laboratory, AFSC, NMFS, Seattle, WA 98115, USA.

B Institute for Applied Ecology, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT 2601 Australia.

C Corresponding author: jim.hone@canberra.edu.au

Wildlife Research 35(4) 299-309 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR07034
Submitted: 19 March 2007  Accepted: 12 December 2007   Published: 27 June 2008

Abstract

Mark–recapture and line-transect sampling procedures both provide estimators for visibility bias in aerial surveys, and have coexisted in the literature for decades. Mark–recapture estimators of abundance tend to be negatively biased in this context as a result of unmodelled heterogeneity. Line-transect sampling can also be negatively biased if detection probability on the line is less than 1.0. Numerous papers have described hybrid approaches using mark–recapture and line transect methods but there have been some subtle but important differences that may not be apparent to the practitioner. We have used wild horse survey data collected in south-eastern Australia and some imaginary data to highlight these subtle differences. We demonstrate the advantage of using the hybrid approach, which uses the strengths of both mark–recapture and line-transect procedures by fitting a detection function (with p(0) = 1) to the line-transect data to estimate the shape of the detection function, and uses a separate detection function for the mark–recapture data to estimate the intercept (p(0)).


Acknowledgements

We thank the pilot, P. Potroz, and the Australian Alps Liaison Committee and the University of Canberra for funding. The New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service provided logistic support. We thank Alex Zerbini, Kim Goetz, David Anderson and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments that led to useful improvements in the manuscript.


References

Alho, J. (1990). Logistic regression in capture–recapture models. Biometrics 46, 623–635.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | Borchers D. L. (1996). Line transect abundance estimation with uncertain detection on the trackline. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cape Town, South Africa.

Borchers D. L., and Burnham K. P. (2004). General formulation for distance sampling. In ‘Advanced Distance Sampling’. (Eds S. T. Buckland, D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, J. L. Laake, D. L. Borchers and L. Thomas.) pp. 6–30. (Oxford University Press: Oxford.)

Borchers, D. L. , Zucchini, W. , and Fewster, R. (1998a). Mark–recapture models for line transect surveys. Biometrics 54, 1207–1220.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Buckland S. T., Anderson D. R., Burnham K. P., Laake J. L., Borchers D. L., and Thomas L. (2001). ‘Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations.’ (Oxford University Press: London.)

Burnham K. P., Anderson D. R., and Laake J. L. (1980). Estimation of density from line transect sampling of biological populations. Wildlife Monographs No. 72.

Burnham K. P., Buckland S. T., Laake J. L., Borchers D. L., Marques T. A., Bishop J. R. B., and Thomas L. (2004). Further topics in distance sampling. In ‘Advanced Distance Sampling’. (Eds S. T. Buckland, D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, J. L. Laake, D. L. Borchers and L. Thomas.) pp. 307–392. (Oxford University Press: Oxford.)

Butterworth, D. S. , and Borchers, D. L. (1988). Estimates of g(0) for minke schools from the results of the independent observer experiment on the 1985/86 and 1986/87 IWC/IDCR Antarctic assessment cruises. Report of the International Whaling Commission 38, 301–313.
Laake J. L. (1978). Line transect estimators robust to animal movement. M.S. Thesis, Utah State University, Logan, UT.

Laake J. (1999). Distance sampling with independent observers: reducing bias from heterogeneity by weakening the conditional independence assumption. In ‘Marine Mammal Survey and Assessment Methods’. (Eds G. Amstrup, S. Garner, J. Laake, B. Manly, L. McDonald and D. Robertson.) pp. 137–148. (Balkema: Rotterdam.)

Laake J. L., and Borchers D. L. (2004). Methods for incomplete detection at distance zero. In ‘Advanced Distance Sampling’. (Eds S. T. Buckland, D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, J. L. Laake, D. L. Borchers and L. Thomas.) pp. 108–189. (Oxford University Press: Oxford.)

Laake, J. L. , Calambokidis, J. C. , Osmek, S. D. , and Rugh, D. J. (1997). Probability of detecting harbor porpoise from aerial surveys: estimating g(0). Journal of Wildlife Management 61, 63–75.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Marques F. F. C., and Buckland S. T. (2004). Covariate models for the detection function. In ‘Advanced Distance Sampling’. (Eds S. T. Buckland, D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, J. L. Laake, D. L. Borchers and L. Thomas.) pp. 31–47. (Oxford University Press: Oxford.)

Marsh, H. , and Sinclair, D. F. (1989). Correcting for visibility bias in strip transect aerial surveys of aquatic fauna. Journal of Wildlife Management 53, 1017–1024.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Otis D. L., Burnham K. P., White G. C., and Anderson D. R. (1978). Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife Monographs No. 62.

Palka, D. (1995). Abundance estimate of the Gulf of Maine harbor porpoise. Report of the International Whaling Commission Special Issue 16, 27–50.
Thomas L., Laake J. L., Strindberg S., Marques F. F. C., Buckland S. T., et al. (2006). Distance 5.0. Release 1. Research Unit for Wildlife Population Assessment, University of St Andrews, United Kingdom. http://www.ruwpa.st-and.ac.uk/distance/

Walter, M. J. , and Hone, J. (2003). A comparison of 3 aerial survey techniques to estimate wild horse abundance in the Australian Alps. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31, 1138–1149.
Zeh J. E., Clark C. W., George J. C., Withrow D., Carroll G. M., and Koski W. R. (1993). Current population size and dynamics. In ‘The Bowhead Whale: 409489’. (Eds J. J. Burns, J. J. Montague and C. J. Cowles.) Society of Marine Mammals Special Publication No. 2.




� MJD previously published as M. J. Walter.