Pitfalls arising from site selection bias in population monitoring defy simple heuristics
Pitfalls arising from site selection bias in population monitoring defy simple heuristics
复制标题
人口监测中选址偏差引起的陷阱无法通过简单的启发法来解决
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2023
影响因子：
6.6
通讯作者：
Brian W Rolek
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Mcclure;Brian W Rolek
当研究人员在非常丰富、占用或质量极高的地点监测动物时，可能会出现地点选择偏差。因此，流行的启发式方法是，生态学家永远不应该使用这些标准来选择地点。因此，人们担心，常见的监测计划，包括在殖民地、迁徙瓶颈和人工繁殖点的调查，故意监测大量丰富的地点。这种常规监测计划是否可能屈服于选址偏见，目前还没有得到审查。我们模拟长寿脊椎动物种群的动态，以测试根据丰度、占有率或质量选择监测地点时可能出现的三个潜在陷阱。(1)为了回归到平均值，受监测地点的种群水平可能会出现下降，因为它们是在丰度高峰期间选择的，而随机波动会导致种群数量从那时开始下降。(2)优先抽样是指局部生物体偏爱的一些地点，其被选择监测的概率高于平均水平。(3)由于初始占用或历史占用而更频繁地选择占用站点进行监测时，会出现遗漏零效应。我们的模拟表明，只有当丰度的年际波动与站点之间的平均差异相比相对较大时，才应该回归到平均值。如果研究人员监测到真正具有巨大平均丰度的地点，就可以避免回归到平均水平。优先抽样可能导致发现下降的延迟，因为受监测的地点是重点物种的首选地点，因此应该是第一个被占领，最后一个被放弃的地点。最后，遗漏零效应可能会导致稳定人口数量的明显下降，因为地点是在最初被占领时选择的，因此只能被放弃，而在最初未被占领的地点则无法观察到潜在的殖民。回归平均值发生在某些研究系统(例如群体调查)在生物学上似乎不可信的特定情况下。因此，在不同生活史的有机体中应用单一的简单启发式方法是不切实际的，例如，不要在大量繁殖的地点监测动物。
Site selection bias can occur when researchers monitor animals at sites of great abundance, occupancy or quality. The prevailing heuristic is therefore that ecologists should never select sites using these criteria. There is thus concern that common monitoring schemes including surveys at colonies, migratory bottlenecks and artificial breeding sites intentionally monitor sites of great abundance. Whether such routine monitoring schemes likely succumb to site selection bias is unexamined. We simulate the dynamics of long‐lived vertebrate populations to test three potential pitfalls hypothesized to occur when sites are selected for monitoring based on abundance, occupancy or quality. (1) For regression to the mean, population levels might appear to decline at monitored sites because they were chosen during a peak of abundance and random fluctuations cause populations to decrease from that point. (2) Preferential sampling occurs when some sites are preferred by the focal organism and have an above‐average probability of being selected for monitoring. (3) The missing zero effect occurs when occupied sites are chosen more often for monitoring because of initial or historical occupancy. Our simulations demonstrate that regression to the mean should only occur when inter‐annual fluctuations in abundance are relatively large compared with the average difference between sites. If researchers monitor sites that are truly of great average abundance, regression to the mean is avoided. Preferential sampling can cause a delay in the detection of a decline because monitored sites are preferred by the focal species and thus should be the first to be occupied and the last to be abandoned. Finally, the missing zero effect can cause a perceived decline in a stable population because sites were chosen when they were initially occupied and thus can only be abandoned, whereas potential colonizations at initially unoccupied sites cannot be observed. Regression to the mean occurred during specific circumstances that do not seem biologically plausible for some study systems (e.g. colony surveys). It is therefore impractical to apply a single simple heuristic such as ‘never monitor animals at sites of great abundance’ across organisms of varying life histories.