↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Determining Occurrence Dynamics when False Positives Occur: Estimating the Range Dynamics of Wolves from Public Survey Data

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
89 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
196 Mendeley
Title
Determining Occurrence Dynamics when False Positives Occur: Estimating the Range Dynamics of Wolves from Public Survey Data
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0065808
Pubmed ID
Authors

David A. W. Miller, James D. Nichols, Justin A. Gude, Lindsey N. Rich, Kevin M. Podruzny, James E. Hines, Michael S. Mitchell

Abstract

Large-scale presence-absence monitoring programs have great promise for many conservation applications. Their value can be limited by potential incorrect inferences owing to observational errors, especially when data are collected by the public. To combat this, previous analytical methods have focused on addressing non-detection from public survey data. Misclassification errors have received less attention but are also likely to be a common component of public surveys, as well as many other data types. We derive estimators for dynamic occupancy parameters (extinction and colonization), focusing on the case where certainty can be assumed for a subset of detections. We demonstrate how to simultaneously account for non-detection (false negatives) and misclassification (false positives) when estimating occurrence parameters for gray wolves in northern Montana from 2007-2010. Our primary data source for the analysis was observations by deer and elk hunters, reported as part of the state's annual hunter survey. This data was supplemented with data from known locations of radio-collared wolves. We found that occupancy was relatively stable during the years of the study and wolves were largely restricted to the highest quality habitats in the study area. Transitions in the occupancy status of sites were rare, as occupied sites almost always remained occupied and unoccupied sites remained unoccupied. Failing to account for false positives led to over estimation of both the area inhabited by wolves and the frequency of turnover. The ability to properly account for both false negatives and false positives is an important step to improve inferences for conservation from large-scale public surveys. The approach we propose will improve our understanding of the status of wolf populations and is relevant to many other data types where false positives are a component of observations.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 196 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
France 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 183 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 23%
Researcher 44 22%
Student > Master 33 17%
Student > Bachelor 14 7%
Other 11 6%
Other 28 14%
Unknown 21 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 106 54%
Environmental Science 52 27%
Computer Science 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 <1%
Unspecified 1 <1%
Other 7 4%
Unknown 26 13%