title: Revisiting the effect of capture heterogeneity on survival estimates in capture-mark-recapture studies: does it matter?
abstract: Recently developed capture-mark-recapture methods allow us to account for capture heterogeneity among individuals in the form of discrete mixtures and continuous individual random effects. In this article, we used simulations and two case studies to evaluate the effectiveness of continuously distributed individual random effects at removing potential bias due to capture heterogeneity, and to evaluate in what situation the added complexity of these models is justified. Simulations and case studies showed that ignoring individual capture heterogeneity generally led to a small negative bias in survival estimates and that individual random effects effectively removed this bias. As expected, accounting for capture heterogeneity also led to slightly less precise survival estimates. Our case studies also showed that accounting for capture heterogeneity increased in importance towards the end of study. Though ignoring capture heterogeneity led to a small bias in survival estimates, such bias may greatly impact management decisions. We advocate reducing potential heterogeneity at the sampling design stage. Where this is insufficient, we recommend modelling individual capture heterogeneity in situations such as when a large proportion of the individuals has a low detection probability (e.g. in the presence of floaters) and situations where the most recent survival estimates are of great interest (e.g. in applied conservation).
authors: South African National Biodiversity Institute, Claremont, South Africa.
authors: Fitsum
authors: F
authors: Abadi
authors: Andre
authors: A
authors: Botha
authors: Res
authors: R
authors: Altwegg
mesh_terms: D000465:Algorithms; D000818:Animals; D003198:Computer Simulation; D015233:Models, Statistical; D011336:Probability; D013534:Survival
references: Am Nat. 2008 Sep;172(3):441-8
references: 18657010
references: Ecology. 2010 Nov;91(11):3365-75
references: 21141197
references: Ecology. 2011 Mar;92(3):562-7
references: 21608464
references: Ecology. 2010 Apr;91(4):951-7
references: 20462110
references: Biometrics. 2008 Jun;64(2):364-70
references: 17725811
references: Biometrics. 2005 Jun;61(2):442-7
references: 16011690
references: J Anim Ecol. 2012 Sep;81(5):970-7
references: 22548508
references: Biometrika. 1965 Jun;52:225-47
references: 14341276
references: Am Nat. 1997 Dec;150(6):771-89
references: 18811335
references: Biometrika. 1965 Jun;52:249-59
references: 14341277
references: Evolution. 2009 Dec;63(12):3097-105
references: 19656185
references: Ecol Lett. 2010 May;13(5):616-26
references: 20337696
references: Conserv Biol. 2010 Apr;24(2):621-6
references: 20105205
references: Evolution. 2006 Mar;60(3):460-6
references: 16637491