bioRxivEcology
Modelling spatially autocorrelated detection probabilities in spatial capture-recapture using random effects
S. Dey, E. M. Moqanaki, C. Milleret, P. Dupont, M. Tourani, R. Bischof
Abstract
Spatial capture-recapture (SCR) models are now widely used for estimating density from repeated individual spatial encounters. SCR accounts for the inherent spatial autocorrelation in individual detections by modelling detection probabilities as a function of distance between the detectors and individual activity centres. However, additional spatial heterogeneity in detection probability may still creep in due to environmental or sampling characteristics. if unaccounted for, such variation can lead to pronounced bias in population size estimates. Using simulations, we describe and test three Bayesian SCR models that use generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) to account for latent heterogeneity in baseline detection probability across detectors using: independent random effects (RE), spatially autocorrelated random effects (SARE), and a twogroup finite mixture model (FM). Overall, SARE provided the least biased population size estimates (median RB: -9 - 6%). When spatial autocorrelation was high, SARE also performed best at predicting the spatial pattern of heterogeneity in detection probability. At intermediate levels of autocorrelation, spatially-explicit estimates of detection probability obtained with FM where more accurate than those generated by SARE and RE. In cases where the number of detections per detector is realistically low (at most 1), all GLMMs considered here may require dimension reduction of the random effects by pooling baseline detection probability parameters across neighboring detectors ("aggregation") to avoid over-parameterization. The added complexity and computational overhead associated with SCR-GLMMs may only be justified in extreme cases of spatial heterogeneity. However, even in less extreme cases, detecting and estimating spatially heterogeneous detection probability may assist in planning or adjusting monitoring schemes.
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Consequences of ignoring variable and spatially-autocorrelated detection probability in spatial capture-recapture
E. M. Moqanaki, C. Milleret, … R. Bischof·bioRxiv·Dec 24, 2020
- Does the punishment fit the crime? Consequences and diagnosis of misspecified detection functions in Bayesian spatial capture-recapture modelling
S. Dey, R. Bischof, … C. Milleret·bioRxiv·Jan 12, 2021
- Spatially explicit capture-recapture models for relative density
Murray G. Efford·EcologyPeer-reviewed·Jul 1, 2026
- Mt or not Mt: Temporal variation in detection probability in spatial capture-recapture and occupancy models
R. Sollmann·bioRxiv·Aug 8, 2023
- A hierarchical point process model for spatial capture-recapture data
W. Zhang, J. D. Chipperfield, … R. Bischof·bioRxiv·Oct 6, 2020
- Evaluating and integrating spatial capture-recapture models with data of variable individual identifiability
J. Ruprecht, C. Eriksson, … T. Levi·bioRxiv·Mar 27, 2020