title: A review of Bayesian state-space modelling of capture-recapture-recovery data.
abstract: Traditionally, state-space models are fitted to data where there is uncertainty in the observation or measurement of the system. State-space models are partitioned into an underlying system process describing the transitions of the true states of the system over time and the observation process linking the observations of the system to the true states. Open population capture-recapture-recovery data can be modelled in this framework by regarding the system process as the state of each individual observed within the study in terms of being alive or dead, and the observation process the recapture and/or recovery process. The traditional observation error of a state-space model is incorporated via the recapture/recovery probabilities being less than unity. The models can be fitted using a Bayesian data augmentation approach and in standard BUGS packages. Applying this state-space framework to such data permits additional complexities including individual heterogeneity to be fitted to the data at very little additional programming effort. We consider the efficiency of the state-space model fitting approach by considering a random effects model for capture-recapture data relating to dippers and compare different Bayesian model-fitting algorithms within WinBUGS.
authors.affiliation: School of Mathematics and Statistics and Centre for Research into Ecological and Environmental Modelling, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9LZ, UK.
authors.forename: Ruth
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: King
keywords: BUGS; Bayesian approach; data augmentation; hierarchical model; individual heterogeneity; mixed effects models
references.citation: Biometrics. 2006 Mar;62(1):211-20
references.pmid: 16542248
references.citation: Biometrics. 2010 Dec;66(4):1256-65
references.pmid: 20163405
references.citation: Biometrics. 2008 Sep;64(3):816-824
references.pmid: 18047534
references.citation: Ecology. 2010 Apr;91(4):951-7
references.pmid: 20462110
references.citation: Biometrics. 2006 Mar;62(1):142-9
references.pmid: 16542240
references.citation: Biometrics. 2008 Jun;64(2):364-70
references.pmid: 17725811
references.citation: Biometrics. 2005 Jun;61(2):442-7
references.pmid: 16011690
references.citation: Biometrics. 2006 Sep;62(3):691-8
references.pmid: 16984309
references.citation: J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009 Jun;172(3):579-598
references.pmid: 19649268
references.citation: Biometrics. 2003 Dec;59(4):786-94
references.pmid: 14969456
references.citation: Biometrics. 2010 Sep;66(3):883-90
references.pmid: 19930186
references.citation: Biometrics. 2002 Dec;58(4):841-51
references.pmid: 12495138
references.citation: Biometrics. 2008 Dec;64(4):1187-95
references.pmid: 18325067
references.citation: Math Biosci. 2010 Nov;228(1):16-30
references.pmid: 20800072
references.citation: Biometrics. 2007 Dec;63(4):1015-22
references.pmid: 17501941
references.citation: Ecology. 2010 Nov;91(11):3376-83
references.pmid: 21141198
references.citation: Biometrics. 2002 Sep;58(3):540-7
references.pmid: 12229988
references.citation: Biometrika. 1965 Jun;52:225-47
references.pmid: 14341276
references.citation: Biometrics. 2003 Mar;59(1):54-65
references.pmid: 12762441
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2008 Feb;23(2):87-94
references.pmid: 18191283
references.citation: Biometrics. 2001 Jun;57(2):469-77
references.pmid: 11414571
references.citation: Biometrics. 2009 Jun;65(2):572-83
references.pmid: 18565166
references.citation: Biometrika. 1965 Jun;52:249-59
references.pmid: 14341277