Comparison of Methods for Estimating Bird Abundance and Trends From Historical Count Data

  • Thompson F
  • La Sorte F
  • 81

    Readers

    Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
  • 17

    Citations

    Citations of this article.

Abstract

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is an electronic aggregator of bioscience research content, and the online home to over 160 journals and books published by not-for-profit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne's Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. ABSTRACT The use of bird counts as indices has come under increasing scrutiny because assumptions concerning detection probabilities may not be met, but there also seems to be some resistance to use of model-based approaches to estimating abundance. We used data from the United States Forest Service, Southern Region bird monitoring program to compare several common approaches for estimating annual abundance or indices and population trends from point-count data. We compared indices of abundance estimated as annual means of counts and from a mixed-Poisson model to abundance estimates from a count-removal model with 3 time intervals and a distance model with 3 distance bands. We compared trend estimates calculated from an autoregressive, exponential model fit to annual abundance estimates from the above methods and also by estimating trend directly by treating year as a continuous covariate in the mixed-Poisson model. We produced estimates for 6 forest songbirds based on an average of 621 and 459 points in 2 physiographic areas from 1997 to 2004. There was strong evidence that detection probabilities varied among species and years. Nevertheless, there was good overall agreement across trend estimates from the 5 methods for 9 of 12 comparisons. In 3 of 12 comparisons, however, patterns in detection probabilities potentially confounded interpretation of uncorrected counts. Estimates of detection probabilities differed greatly between removal and distance models, likely because the methods estimated different components of detection probability and the data collection was not optimally designed for either method. Given that detection probabilities often vary among species, years, and observers investigators should address detection probability in their surveys, whether it be by estimation of probability of detection and abundance, estimation of effects of key covariates when modeling count as an index of abundance, or through design-based methods to standardize these effects. (JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 72(8):1674–1682; 2008)

Get free article suggestions today

Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research

Sign up here
Already have an account ?Sign in

Find this document

Authors

  • Frank R. Thompson

  • Frank A. La Sorte

Cite this document

Choose a citation style from the tabs below

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free