Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Accounting for imperfect detection and survey bias in statistical analysis of presence‐only data
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Accounting for imperfect detection and survey bias in statistical analysis of presence‐only data
Do you wish to request the book?
Accounting for imperfect detection and survey bias in statistical analysis of presence‐only data
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Accounting for imperfect detection and survey bias in statistical analysis of presence‐only data
2014
Overview
AIM: During the past decade ecologists have attempted to estimate the parameters of species distribution models by combining locations of species presence observed in opportunistic surveys with spatially referenced covariates of occurrence. Several statistical models have been proposed for the analysis of presence‐only data, but these models have largely ignored the effects of imperfect detection and survey bias. In this paper I describe a model‐based approach for the analysis of presence‐only data that accounts for errors in the detection of individuals and for biased selection of survey locations. INNOVATION: I develop a hierarchical, statistical model that allows presence‐only data to be analysed in conjunction with data acquired independently in planned surveys. One component of the model specifies the spatial distribution of individuals within a bounded, geographic region as a realization of a spatial point process. A second component of the model specifies two kinds of observations, the detection of individuals encountered during opportunistic surveys and the detection of individuals encountered during planned surveys. MAIN CONCLUSIONS: Using mathematical proof and simulation‐based comparisons, I demonstrate that biases induced by errors in detection or biased selection of survey locations can be reduced or eliminated by using the hierarchical model to analyse presence‐only data in conjunction with counts observed in planned surveys. I show that a relatively small number of high‐quality data (from planned surveys) can be used to leverage the information in presence‐only observations, which usually have broad spatial coverage but may not be informative of both occurrence and detectability of individuals. Because a variety of sampling protocols can be used in planned surveys, this approach to the analysis of presence‐only data is widely applicable. In addition, since the point‐process model is formulated at the level of an individual, it can be extended to account for biological interactions between individuals and temporal changes in their spatial distributions.
Publisher
Blackwell Science,Blackwell Publishing Ltd,John Wiley & Sons Ltd,Blackwell,Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
