School of Botany - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2
-
ItemIgnoring Imperfect Detection in Biological Surveys Is Dangerous: A Response to 'Fitting and Interpreting Occupancy Models'(PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE, 2014-07-30)In a recent paper, Welsh, Lindenmayer and Donnelly (WLD) question the usefulness of models that estimate species occupancy while accounting for detectability. WLD claim that these models are difficult to fit and argue that disregarding detectability can be better than trying to adjust for it. We think that this conclusion and subsequent recommendations are not well founded and may negatively impact the quality of statistical inference in ecology and related management decisions. Here we respond to WLD's claims, evaluating in detail their arguments, using simulations and/or theory to support our points. In particular, WLD argue that both disregarding and accounting for imperfect detection lead to the same estimator performance regardless of sample size when detectability is a function of abundance. We show that this, the key result of their paper, only holds for cases of extreme heterogeneity like the single scenario they considered. Our results illustrate the dangers of disregarding imperfect detection. When ignored, occupancy and detection are confounded: the same naïve occupancy estimates can be obtained for very different true levels of occupancy so the size of the bias is unknowable. Hierarchical occupancy models separate occupancy and detection, and imprecise estimates simply indicate that more data are required for robust inference about the system in question. As for any statistical method, when underlying assumptions of simple hierarchical models are violated, their reliability is reduced. Resorting in those instances where hierarchical occupancy models do no perform well to the naïve occupancy estimator does not provide a satisfactory solution. The aim should instead be to achieve better estimation, by minimizing the effect of these issues during design, data collection and analysis, ensuring that the right amount of data is collected and model assumptions are met, considering model extensions where appropriate.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableIncorporating detectability of threatened species into environmental impact assessment(WILEY, 2015-02)Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a key mechanism for protecting threatened plant and animal species. Many species are not perfectly detectable and, even when present, may remain undetected during EIA surveys, increasing the risk of site-level loss or extinction of species. Numerous methods now exist for estimating detectability of plants and animals. Despite this, regulations concerning survey protocol and effort during EIAs fail to adequately address issues of detectability. Probability of detection is intrinsically linked to survey effort; thus, minimum survey effort requirements are a useful way to address the risks of false absences. We utilized 2 methods for determining appropriate survey effort requirements during EIA surveys. One method determined the survey effort required to achieve a probability of detection of 0.95 when the species is present. The second method estimated the survey effort required to either detect the species or reduce the probability of presence to 0.05. We applied these methods to Pimelea spinscens subsp. spinescens, a critically endangered grassland plant species in Melbourne, Australia. We detected P. spinescens in only half of the surveys undertaken at sites where it was known to exist. Estimates of the survey effort required to detect the species or demonstrate its absence with any confidence were much higher than the effort traditionally invested in EIA surveys for this species. We argue that minimum survey requirements be established for all species listed under threatened species legislation and hope that our findings will provide an impetus for collecting, compiling, and synthesizing quantitative detectability estimates for a broad range of plant and animal species.