↓ Skip to main content

Balancing Precision and Risk: Should Multiple Detection Methods Be Analyzed Separately in N-Mixture Models?

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Balancing Precision and Risk: Should Multiple Detection Methods Be Analyzed Separately in N-Mixture Models?
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0049410
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tabitha A. Graves, J. Andrew Royle, Katherine C. Kendall, Paul Beier, Jeffrey B. Stetz, Amy C. Macleod

Abstract

Using multiple detection methods can increase the number, kind, and distribution of individuals sampled, which may increase accuracy and precision and reduce cost of population abundance estimates. However, when variables influencing abundance are of interest, if individuals detected via different methods are influenced by the landscape differently, separate analysis of multiple detection methods may be more appropriate. We evaluated the effects of combining two detection methods on the identification of variables important to local abundance using detections of grizzly bears with hair traps (systematic) and bear rubs (opportunistic). We used hierarchical abundance models (N-mixture models) with separate model components for each detection method. If both methods sample the same population, the use of either data set alone should (1) lead to the selection of the same variables as important and (2) provide similar estimates of relative local abundance. We hypothesized that the inclusion of 2 detection methods versus either method alone should (3) yield more support for variables identified in single method analyses (i.e. fewer variables and models with greater weight), and (4) improve precision of covariate estimates for variables selected in both separate and combined analyses because sample size is larger. As expected, joint analysis of both methods increased precision as well as certainty in variable and model selection. However, the single-method analyses identified different variables and the resulting predicted abundances had different spatial distributions. We recommend comparing single-method and jointly modeled results to identify the presence of individual heterogeneity between detection methods in N-mixture models, along with consideration of detection probabilities, correlations among variables, and tolerance to risk of failing to identify variables important to a subset of the population. The benefits of increased precision should be weighed against those risks. The analysis framework presented here will be useful for other species exhibiting heterogeneity by detection method.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 7%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Latvia 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 39 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 36%
Student > Master 8 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Other 3 7%
Professor 2 4%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 47%
Environmental Science 16 36%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Unknown 7 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 November 2018.
All research outputs
#6,918,838
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#81,532
of 193,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,495
of 278,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,656
of 4,853 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,655 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,740 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,853 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.