USING BINOMIAL DISTANCE-SAMPLING MODELS TO ESTIMATE THE EFFECTIVE DETECTION RADIUS OF POINT-COUNT SURVEYS ACROSS BOREAL CANADA
USING BINOMIAL DISTANCE-SAMPLING MODELS TO ESTIMATE THE EFFECTIVE DETECTION RADIUS OF POINT-COUNT SURVEYS ACROSS BOREAL CANADA
复制标题
DOI：
10.1525/auk.2012.11190
复制
发表时间：
2012-04-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Song, Samantha J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Matsuoka, Steven M.;Bayne, Erin M.;Song, Samantha J.
我们使用二项距离抽样模型来估计加拿大北部地区点计数调查的有效探测半径(EDR)。我们评估了基于0-50m和>；50m距离类别的二项式模型的拟合度和对调查工作量和采样生境变化的敏感性。我们还在飞行的最大检测距离(MDD)中比较了二项EDR和合作伙伴，以确定各自得出的土鸟种群大小的差异。与使用多项式距离抽样估计的EDR相比，二项式EDR对86个物种的平均正偏差较小(4%)，对两个物种的较大正偏差(30-82%)。二项式EDR的模式与鸟类鸣叫如何随着频率和通过不同栖息地的传播而衰减一致。不同栖息地的EDR差异为12%，当鸟类被计数到无限距离时，EDR增加了17%，而有限距离为100m。EDR不随调查持续时间而变化，使用无限距离和截断数据时，密度也没有差异。然而，估计密度从3分钟到5分钟增加了19%，从5分钟增加到10分钟，可能是因为计数较长的鸟类的可用性、迁移量或重复计数的增加。因此，如果方法不同，研究人员在比较不同研究之间的距离抽样结果时应该谨慎。使用EDR估计的种群规模平均是MDD估计的5倍(0.8-15倍)。北美各地普遍存在用于估计二项式EDR的调查数据，在估计土鸟种群数量时，这些数据可以作为MDD的替代。2011年8月31日收到，2012年1月31日接受。
We used binomial distance-sampling models to estimate the effective detection radius (EDR) of point-count surveys across boreal Canada. We evaluated binomial models based on 0-50 m and >50 m distance categories for goodness-of-fit and sensitivities to variation in survey effort and habitats sampled. We also compared binomial EDRs to Partners in Flight's maximum detection distances (MDD) to determine differences in landbird population sizes derived from each. Binomial EDRs had a small positive bias (4%) averaged across 86 species and a large positive bias (30-82%) for two species when compared with EDRs estimated using multinomial distance sampling. Patterns in binomial EDRs were consistent with how bird songs attenuate in relation to their frequencies and transmission through different habitats. EDR varied 12% among habitats and increased 17% when birds were counted to an unlimited distance, compared with a limited distance of 100 m. The EDR did not vary with the duration of surveys, and densities did not differ when using unlimited-distance versus truncated data. Estimated densities, however, increased 19% from 3- to 5-min counts and 25% from 5- to 10-min counts, possibly from increases in the availability, movement, or double counting of birds with longer counts. Thus, investigators should be cautious when comparing distance-sampling results among studies if methods vary. Population sizes estimated using EDR averaged 5 times (0.8-15 times) those estimated with MDD. Survey data from which to estimate binomial EDRs are widely available across North America and could be used as an alternative to MDD when estimating landbird population sizes. Received 31 August 2011, accepted 31 January 2012.