Recommendations for photo‐identification methods used in capture‐recapture models with cetaceans

Capture‐recapture methods are frequently employed to estimate abundance of cetaceans using photographic techniques and a variety of statistical models. However, there are many unresolved issues regarding the selection and manipulation of images that can potentially impose bias on resulting estimates. To examine the potential impact of these issues we circulated a test data set of dorsal fin images from bottlenose dolphins to several independent research groups. Photo‐identification methods were generally similar, but the selection, scoring, and matching of images varied greatly amongst groups. Based on these results we make the following recommendations. Researchers should: (1) determine the degree of marking, or level of distinctiveness, and use images of sufficient quality to recognize animals of that level of distinctiveness; (2) ensure that markings are sufficiently distinct to eliminate the potential for “twins” to occur; (3) stratify data sets by distinctiveness and generate a series of abundance estimates to investigate the influence of including animals of varying degrees of markings; and (4) strive to examine and incorporate variability among analysts into capture‐recapture estimation. In this paper we summarize these potential sources of bias and provide recommendations for best practices for using natural markings in a capture‐recapture framework.     

Open population maximum likelihood spatial capture‐recapture

Open population capture‐recapture models are widely used to estimate population demographics and abundance over time. Bayesian methods exist to incorporate open population modeling with spatial capture‐recapture (SCR), allowing for estimation of the effective area sampled and population density. Here, open population SCR is formulated as a hidden Markov model (HMM), allowing inference by maximum likelihood for both Cormack‐Jolly‐Seber and Jolly‐Seber models, with and without activity center movement. The method is applied to a 12‐year survey of male jaguars (Panthera onca) in the Cockscomb Basin Wildlife Sanctuary, Belize, to estimate survival probability and population abundance over time. For this application, inference is shown to be biased when assuming activity centers are fixed over time, while including a model for activity center movement provides negligible bias and nominal confidence interval coverage, as demonstrated by a simulation study. The HMM approach is compared with Bayesian data augmentation and closed population models for this application. The method is substantially more computationally efficient than the Bayesian approach and provides a lower root‐mean‐square error in predicting population density compared to closed population models.     

genecap: a program for analysis of multilocus genotype data for non‐invasive sampling and capture‐recapture population estimation

We created genecap to facilitate analysis of multilocus genotype data for use in non‐invasive DNA sampling and genetic capture‐recapture studies. genecap is a Microsoft excel macro that uses multilocus genetic data to match samples with identical genotypes, calculate frequency of alleles, identify sample genotypes that differ by one and two alleles, calculate probabilities of identity, and match probabilities for matching samples. genecap allows the user to include background data and samples with missing genotypes for multiple loci. Capture histories for each user‐defined sampling period are output in formats consistent with commonly employed population estimation programs.     

Inferring causal factors for a declining population of bottlenose dolphins via temporal symmetry capture–recapture modeling

We applied temporal symmetry capture–recapture (TSCR) models to assess the strength of evidence for factors potentially responsible for population decline in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Doubtful Sound, New Zealand from 1995 to 2008. Model selection was conducted to estimate recruitment and population growth rates. There were similar levels of support for three different models, each reflecting distinct trends in recruitment. Modeling yielded low overall estimates of recruitment (0.0249, 95% CI: 0.0174–0.0324) and population growth rate (0.9642, 95% CI: 0.9546–0.9737). The TSCR rate of population decline was consistent with an estimate derived from trends in abundance (lambda = 0.9632, 95% CI: 0.9599–0.9665). The TSCR model selection confirmed the influence of a decline in the survival of calves (<1 yr old) since 2002 for population trends. However, TSCR population growth rates did not exceed 1 in any year between 1995 and 2008, indicating the population was declining prior to 2002. A separate reduction in juvenile survival (1–3 yr old) prior to 2002 was identified as a likely contributing factor in the population decline. Thus, TSCR modeling indicated the potential cause of the population decline in Doubtful Sound: cumulative impacts on individuals <3 yr old resulting in a reduced recruitment.     

The use of a non‐invasive tool for capture–recapture studies on a seahorse Hippocampus guttulatus population

In this study, the spot pattern in Hippocampus guttulatus was analysed using a computer programme algorithm that allowed individual comparison. This methodology was first tested in a controlled environment using 51 adult and 55 juvenile H. guttulatus. Positive matches were obtained in 86·3 and 83·6% of the adults and juveniles, respectively. In a second experiment, monthly surveys were carried out in five selected locations in the Ria Formosa Lagoon, south Portugal, over the course of a year and a total of 980 photographs were analysed. Photographed H. guttulatus were re‐sighted one to nine times during the course of the survey period with an overall re‐sight record of over 30%. Photo‐identification was therefore shown to be a useful tool for non‐invasive mark–recapture studies that can be successfully used to survey the population abundance of H. guttulatus aged 6 months or older in consecutive years. This could be of great value when considering the assessment of H. guttulatus populations and understanding changes over time.     

Estimation of population size based on additive hazards models for continuous-time recapture experiments

We use the semiparametric additive hazards model to formulate the effects of individual covariates on the capture rates in the continuous-time capture-recapture experiment, and then construct a Horvitz-Thompson-type estimator for the unknown population size. The resulting estimator is consistent and asymptotically normal with an easily estimated variance. Simulation studies show that the asymptotic approximations are adequate for practical use when the average capture probabilities exceed .5. Ignoring covariates would underestimate the population size and the coverage probability is poor. A wildlife example is provided.     

A spatially explicit capture–recapture estimator for single‐catch traps

Single‐catch traps are frequently used in live‐trapping studies of small mammals. Thus far, a likelihood for single‐catch traps has proven elusive and usually the likelihood for multicatch traps is used for spatially explicit capture–recapture (SECR) analyses of such data. Previous work found the multicatch likelihood to provide a robust estimator of average density. We build on a recently developed continuous‐time model for SECR to derive a likelihood for single‐catch traps. We use this to develop an estimator based on observed capture times and compare its performance by simulation to that of the multicatch estimator for various scenarios with nonconstant density surfaces. While the multicatch estimator is found to be a surprisingly robust estimator of average density, its performance deteriorates with high trap saturation and increasing density gradients. Moreover, it is found to be a poor estimator of the height of the detection function. By contrast, the single‐catch estimators of density, distribution, and detection function parameters are found to be unbiased or nearly unbiased in all scenarios considered. This gain comes at the cost of higher variance. If there is no interest in interpreting the detection function parameters themselves, and if density is expected to be fairly constant over the survey region, then the multicatch estimator performs well with single‐catch traps. However if accurate estimation of the detection function is of interest, or if density is expected to vary substantially in space, then there is merit in using the single‐catch estimator when trap saturation is above about 60%. The estimator's performance is improved if care is taken to place traps so as to span the range of variables that affect animal distribution. As a single‐catch likelihood with unknown capture times remains intractable for now, researchers using single‐catch traps should aim to incorporate timing devices with their traps.     

On the design of closed recapture experiments

We propose a method to plan the number of occasions of recapture experiments for population size estimation. We do so by fixing the smallest number of capture occasions so that the expected length of the profile confidence interval is less than or equal to a fixed threshold. In some cases, we solve the optimization problem in closed form. For more complex models we use numerical optimization. We detail models assuming homogeneous, time‐varying, subject‐specific capture probabilities, behavioral response to capture, and combining behavioral response with subject‐specific effects. The principle we propose can be extended to plan any other model specification. We formally show the validity of the approach by proving distributional convergence. We illustrate with simulations and challenging examples in epidemiology and ecology. We report that in many cases adding as few as two sampling occasions may substantially reduce the length of confidence intervals.     

An open spatial capture–recapture model for estimating density,movement, and population dynamics from line‐transect surveys

The purpose of many wildlife population studies is to estimate density, movement, or demographic parameters. Linking these parameters to covariates, such as habitat features, provides additional ecological insight and can be used to make predictions for management purposes. Line‐transect surveys, combined with distance sampling methods, are often used to estimate density at discrete points in time, whereas capture–recapture methods are used to estimate movement and other demographic parameters. Recently, open population spatial capture–recapture models have been developed, which simultaneously estimate density and demographic parameters, but have been made available only for data collected from a fixed array of detectors and have not incorporated the effects of habitat covariates. We developed a spatial capture–recapture model that can be applied to line‐transect survey data by modeling detection probability in a manner analogous to distance sampling. We extend this model to a) estimate demographic parameters using an open population framework and b) model variation in density and space use as a function of habitat covariates. The model is illustrated using simulated data and aerial line‐transect survey data for North Atlantic right whales in the southeastern United States, which also demonstrates the ability to integrate data from multiple survey platforms and accommodate differences between strata or demographic groups. When individuals detected from line‐transect surveys can be uniquely identified, our model can be used to simultaneously make inference on factors that influence spatial and temporal variation in density, movement, and population dynamics.     

Humpback whale abundance in the North Pacific estimated by photographic capture‐recapture with bias correction from simulation studies

We estimated the abundance of humpback whales in the North Pacific by capture‐recapture methods using over 18,000 fluke identification photographs collected in 2004–2006. Our best estimate of abundance was 21,808 (CV = 0.04). We estimated the biases in this value using a simulation model. Births and deaths, which violate the assumption of a closed population, resulted in a bias of +5.2%, exclusion of calves in samples resulted in a bias of ?10.5%, failure to achieve random geographic sampling resulted in a bias of ?0.4%, and missed matches resulted in a bias of +9.3%. Known sex‐biased sampling favoring males in breeding areas did not add significant bias if both sexes are proportionately sampled in the feeding areas. Our best estimate of abundance was 21,063 after accounting for a net bias of +3.5%. This estimate is likely to be lower than the true abundance due to two additional sources of bias: individual heterogeneity in the probability of being sampled (unquantified) and the likely existence of an unknown and unsampled breeding area (?8.7%). Results confirm that the overall humpback whale population in the North Pacific has continued to increase and is now greater than some prior estimates of prewhaling abundance.     

Improved methods for estimating abundance and related demographic parameters from mark‐resight data

Over the past decade, there has been much methodological development for the estimation of abundance and related demographic parameters using mark‐resight data. Often viewed as a less‐invasive and less‐expensive alternative to conventional mark recapture, mark‐resight methods jointly model marked individual encounters and counts of unmarked individuals, and recent extensions accommodate common challenges associated with imperfect detection. When these challenges include both individual detection heterogeneity and an unknown marked sample size, we demonstrate several deficiencies associated with the most widely used mark‐resight models currently implemented in the popular capture‐recapture freeware Program MARK. We propose a composite likelihood solution based on a zero‐inflated Poisson log‐normal model and find the performance of this new estimator to be superior in terms of bias and confidence interval coverage. Under Pollock's robust design, we also extend the models to accommodate individual‐level random effects across sampling occasions as a potentially more realistic alternative to models that assume independence. As a motivating example, we revisit a previous analysis of mark‐resight data for the New Zealand Robin (Petroica australis) and compare inferences from the proposed estimators. For the all‐too‐common situation where encounter rates are low, individual detection heterogeneity is non‐negligible, and the number of marked individuals is unknown, we recommend practitioners use the zero‐inflated Poisson log‐normal mark‐resight estimator as now implemented in Program MARK.     

Comparison of photo‐matching algorithms commonly used for photographic capture–recapture studies

Photographic capture–recapture is a valuable tool for obtaining demographic information on wildlife populations due to its noninvasive nature and cost‐effectiveness. Recently, several computer‐aided photo‐matching algorithms have been developed to more efficiently match images of unique individuals in databases with thousands of images. However, the identification accuracy of these algorithms can severely bias estimates of vital rates and population size. Therefore, it is important to understand the performance and limitations of state‐of‐the‐art photo‐matching algorithms prior to implementation in capture–recapture studies involving possibly thousands of images. Here, we compared the performance of four photo‐matching algorithms; Wild‐ID, I3S Pattern+, APHIS, and AmphIdent using multiple amphibian databases of varying image quality. We measured the performance of each algorithm and evaluated the performance in relation to database size and the number of matching images in the database. We found that algorithm performance differed greatly by algorithm and image database, with recognition rates ranging from 100% to 22.6% when limiting the review to the 10 highest ranking images. We found that recognition rate degraded marginally with increased database size and could be improved considerably with a higher number of matching images in the database. In our study, the pixel‐based algorithm of AmphIdent exhibited superior recognition rates compared to the other approaches. We recommend carefully evaluating algorithm performance prior to using it to match a complete database. By choosing a suitable matching algorithm, databases of sizes that are unfeasible to match “by eye” can be easily translated to accurate individual capture histories necessary for robust demographic estimates.     

Incorporating capture heterogeneity in the estimation of autoregressive coefficients of animal population dynamics using capture–recapture data

Population dynamic models combine density dependence and environmental effects. Ignoring sampling uncertainty might lead to biased estimation of the strength of density dependence. This is typically addressed using state‐space model approaches, which integrate sampling error and population process estimates. Such models seldom include an explicit link between the sampling procedures and the true abundance, which is common in capture–recapture settings. However, many of the models proposed to estimate abundance in the presence of capture heterogeneity lead to incomplete likelihood functions and cannot be straightforwardly included in state‐space models. We assessed the importance of estimating sampling error explicitly by taking an intermediate approach between ignoring uncertainty in abundance estimates and fully specified state‐space models for density‐dependence estimation based on autoregressive processes. First, we estimated individual capture probabilities based on a heterogeneity model for a closed population, using a conditional multinomial likelihood, followed by a Horvitz–Thompson estimate for abundance. Second, we estimated coefficients of autoregressive models for the log abundance. Inference was performed using the methodology of integrated nested Laplace approximation (INLA). We performed an extensive simulation study to compare our approach with estimates disregarding capture history information, and using R‐package VGAM, for different parameter specifications. The methods were then applied to a real data set of gray‐sided voles Myodes rufocanus from Northern Norway. We found that density‐dependence estimation was improved when explicitly modeling sampling error in scenarios with low process variances, in which differences in coverage reached up to 8% in estimating the coefficients of the autoregressive processes. In this case, the bias also increased assuming a Poisson distribution in the observational model. For high process variances, the differences between methods were small and it appeared less important to model heterogeneity.     

Capwire: a R package for estimating population census size from non‐invasive genetic sampling

Non‐invasive genetic sampling is an increasingly popular approach for investigating the demographics of natural populations. This has also become a useful tool for managers and conservation biologists, especially for those species for which traditional mark–recapture studies are not practical. However, the consequence of collecting DNA indirectly is that an individual may be sampled multiple times per sampling session. This requires alternative statistical approaches to those used in traditional mark–recapture studies. Here we present the R package capwire , an implementation of the population size estimators of Miller et al. (Molecular Ecology 2005; 14 : 1991), which were designed to deal specifically with this type of sampling. The aim of this project is to enable users across platforms to easily manipulate their data and interact with existing R packages. We have also provided functions to simulate data under a variety of scenarios to allow for rigorous testing of the robustness of the method and to facilitate further development of this approach.