Richard J. Barker, Matthew R. Schofield, William A. Link, John R. Sauer

N-mixture models describe count data replicated in time and across sites in terms of abundance N and detectability p. They are popular because they allow inference about N while controlling for factors that influence p without the need for marking animals. Using a capture-recapture perspective, we show that the loss of information that results from not marking animals is critical, making reliable statistical modeling of N and p problematic using just count data. One cannot reliably fit a model in which the detection probabilities are distinct among repeat visits as this model is overspecified. This makes uncontrolled variation in p problematic. By counter example, we show that even if p is constant after adjusting for covariate effects (the "constant p" assumption) scientifically plausible alternative models in which N (or its expectation) is non-identifiable or does not even exist as a parameter, lead to data that are practically indistinguishable from data generated under an N-mixture model. This is particularly the case for sparse data as is commonly seen in applications. We conclude that under the constant p assumption reliable inference is only possible for relative abundance in the absence of questionable and/or untestable assumptions or with better quality data than seen in typical applications. Relative abundance models for counts can be readily fitted using Poisson regression in standard software such as R and are sufficiently flexible to allow controlling for p through the use covariates while simultaneously modeling variation in relative abundance. If users require estimates of absolute abundance, they should collect auxiliary data that help with estimation of p.