A hierarchical model for estimating the spatial distribution and abundance of animals detected by continuous-time recorders

That's not the Mona Lisa! How to interpret spatial capture-recapture density surface estimates

Spatial capture-recapture methods are often used to produce density surfaces, and these surfaces are often misinterpreted. In particular, spatial change in density is confused with spatial change in uncertainty about density. We illustrate correct and incorrect inference visually by treating a grayscale image of the Mona Lisa as an activity center intensity or density surface and simulating spatial capture-recapture survey data from it. Inferences can be drawn about the intensity of the point process generating activity centers, and about the likely locations of activity centers associated with the capture histories obtained from a single survey of a single realization of this process. We show that treating probabilistic predictions of activity center locations as estimates of the intensity of the process results in invalid and misleading ecological inferences, and that predictions are highly dependent on where the detectors are placed and how much survey effort is used. Estimates of the activity center density surface should be obtained by estimating the intensity of a point process model for activity centers. Practitioners should state explicitly whether they are estimating the intensity or making predictions of activity center location, and predictions of activity center locations should not be confused with estimates of the intensity.

An integrated path for spatial capture-recapture and animal movement modeling

Ecologists and conservation biologists increasingly rely on spatial capture-recapture (SCR) and movement modeling to study animal populations. Historically, SCR has focused on population-level processes (e.g., vital rates, abundance, density, and distribution), whereas animal movement modeling has focused on the behavior of individuals (e.g., activity budgets, resource selection, migration). Even though animal movement is clearly a driver of population-level patterns and dynamics, technical and conceptual developments to date have not forged a firm link between the two fields. Instead, movement modeling has typically focused on the individual level without providing a coherent scaling from individual- to population-level processes, whereas SCR has typically focused on the population level while greatly simplifying the movement processes that give rise to the observations underlying these models. In our view, the integration of SCR and animal movement modeling has tremendous potential for allowing ecologists to scale up from individuals to populations and advancing the types of inferences that can be made at the intersection of population, movement, and landscape ecology. Properly accounting for complex animal movement processes can also potentially reduce bias in estimators of population-level parameters, thereby improving inferences that are critical for species conservation and management. This introductory article to the Special Feature reviews recent advances in SCR and animal movement modeling, establishes a common notation, highlights potential advantages of linking individual-level (Lagrangian) movements to population-level (Eulerian) processes, and outlines a general conceptual framework for the integration of movement and SCR models. We then identify important avenues for future research, including key challenges and potential pitfalls in the developments and applications that lie ahead.

State space and movement specification in open population spatial capture-recapture models

With continued global changes, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and habitat fragmentation, the need for assessment of long-term population dynamics and population monitoring of threatened species is growing. One powerful way to estimate population size and dynamics is through capture-recapture methods. Spatial capture (SCR) models for open populations make efficient use of capture-recapture data, while being robust to design changes. Relatively few studies have implemented open SCR models, and to date, very few have explored potential issues in defining these models. We develop a series of simulation studies to examine the effects of the state-space definition and between-primary-period movement models on demographic parameter estimation. We demonstrate the implications on a 10-year camera-trap study of tigers in India. The results of our simulation study show that movement biases survival estimates in open SCR models when little is known about between-primary-period movements of animals. The size of the state-space delineation can also bias the estimates of survival in certain cases.We found that both the state-space definition and the between-primary-period movement specification affected survival estimates in the analysis of the tiger dataset (posterior mean estimates of survival ranged from 0.71 to 0.89). In general, we suggest that open SCR models can provide an efficient and flexible framework for long-term monitoring of populations; however, in many cases, realistic modeling of between-primary-period movements is crucial for unbiased estimates of survival and density.