Title |
On the reliability of N-mixture models for count data
|
---|---|
Published in |
Biometrics, July 2017
|
DOI | 10.1111/biom.12734 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Richard J. Barker, Matthew R. Schofield, William A. Link, John R. Sauer |
Abstract |
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. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 7 | 28% |
France | 3 | 12% |
United Kingdom | 3 | 12% |
Canada | 2 | 8% |
Hong Kong | 1 | 4% |
New Zealand | 1 | 4% |
Unknown | 8 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 15 | 60% |
Scientists | 10 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 309 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 70 | 23% |
Student > Master | 62 | 20% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 59 | 19% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 19 | 6% |
Student > Bachelor | 18 | 6% |
Other | 44 | 14% |
Unknown | 37 | 12% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 144 | 47% |
Environmental Science | 79 | 26% |
Mathematics | 5 | 2% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | <1% |
Computer Science | 2 | <1% |
Other | 22 | 7% |
Unknown | 54 | 17% |