Lessons learned from comparing spatially explicit models and the Partners in Flight approach to estimate population sizes of boreal birds in Alberta, Canada

Estimating the population abundance of landbirds is a challenging task complicated by the amount, type, and quality of available data. Avian conservationists have relied on population estimates from Partners in Flight (PIF), which primarily uses roadside data from the North American Breeding Bird Su...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Condor (Los Angeles, Calif.) Calif.), 2020-05, Vol.122 (2), p.1-22
Hauptverfasser: Sólymos, Péter, Toms, Judith D, Matsuoka, Steven M, Cumming, Steven G, Barker, Nicole K. S, Thogmartin, Wayne E, Stralberg, Diana, Crosby, Andrew D, Dénes, Francisco V, Haché, Samuel, Mahon, C. Lisa, Schmiegelow, Fiona K. A, Bayne, Erin M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 22
container_issue 2
container_start_page 1
container_title The Condor (Los Angeles, Calif.)
container_volume 122
creator Sólymos, Péter
Toms, Judith D
Matsuoka, Steven M
Cumming, Steven G
Barker, Nicole K. S
Thogmartin, Wayne E
Stralberg, Diana
Crosby, Andrew D
Dénes, Francisco V
Haché, Samuel
Mahon, C. Lisa
Schmiegelow, Fiona K. A
Bayne, Erin M
description Estimating the population abundance of landbirds is a challenging task complicated by the amount, type, and quality of available data. Avian conservationists have relied on population estimates from Partners in Flight (PIF), which primarily uses roadside data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS). However, the BBS was not designed to estimate population sizes. Therefore, we set out to compare the PIF approach with spatially explicit models incorporating roadside and off-road point-count surveys. We calculated population estimates for 81 landbird species in Bird Conservation Region 6 in Alberta, Canada, using land cover and climate as predictors. We also developed a framework to evaluate how the differences between the detection distance, time-of-day, roadside count, and habitat representation adjustments explain discrepancies between the 2 estimators. We showed that the key assumptions of the PIF population estimator were commonly violated in this region, and that the 2 approaches provided different population estimates for most species. The average differences between estimators were explained by differences in the detection-distance and time-of-day components, but these adjustments left much unexplained variation among species. Differences in the roadside count and habitat representation components explained most of the among-species variation. The variation caused by these factors was large enough to change the population ranking of the species. The roadside count bias needs serious attention when roadside surveys are used to extrapolate over off-road areas. Habitat representation bias is likely prevalent in regions sparsely and non-representatively sampled by roadside surveys, such as the boreal region of North America, and thus population estimates for these regions need to be treated with caution for certain species. Additional sampling and integrated modeling of available data sources can contribute towards more accurate population estimates for conservation in remote areas of North America.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/condor/duaa007
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2410495402</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2410495402</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b344t-55871157a4138f3c7bb8bde128ae5836316e90ffc9654a9108180d57c94431263</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU9r20AQxZfSQNwk15wHerWS_WtJR2OaNGBID-1ZjLSjeMN6V91dQ93P0g8bNfY9p2HgvTdv-DF2K_id4K26H2KwMd3bAyLn9Se2EK1qKiNk-5ktOBe8MlrKS_Yl51c-71LLBfu3pZxjyOAJUyALY4p7GOJ-wuTCC-QJi0Pvj0B_Ju8GV2AfLfkMGCyUHcEPTCVQyuACPHj3siuA05QiDjsoESgXt8dCMMXp4OewGCC7v5QhjtDHROihd8m--9e-p1RwCRsMaPGaXYzoM92c5xX79fDt5-Z7tX1-fNqst1WvtC6VMU0thKlRC9WMaqj7vuktCdkgmUatlFhRy8dxaFdGYyt4IxpuTT20WishV-qKfT3lzrV_H-bG3Ws8pDCf7KQWXLdGczmr7k6qIcWcE43dlObX0rETvPtPoDsR6M4EZsPyZOhdjIE-kr8BE2aNEQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2410495402</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Lessons learned from comparing spatially explicit models and the Partners in Flight approach to estimate population sizes of boreal birds in Alberta, Canada</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>Free E- Journals</source><creator>Sólymos, Péter ; Toms, Judith D ; Matsuoka, Steven M ; Cumming, Steven G ; Barker, Nicole K. S ; Thogmartin, Wayne E ; Stralberg, Diana ; Crosby, Andrew D ; Dénes, Francisco V ; Haché, Samuel ; Mahon, C. Lisa ; Schmiegelow, Fiona K. A ; Bayne, Erin M</creator><creatorcontrib>Sólymos, Péter ; Toms, Judith D ; Matsuoka, Steven M ; Cumming, Steven G ; Barker, Nicole K. S ; Thogmartin, Wayne E ; Stralberg, Diana ; Crosby, Andrew D ; Dénes, Francisco V ; Haché, Samuel ; Mahon, C. Lisa ; Schmiegelow, Fiona K. A ; Bayne, Erin M</creatorcontrib><description>Estimating the population abundance of landbirds is a challenging task complicated by the amount, type, and quality of available data. Avian conservationists have relied on population estimates from Partners in Flight (PIF), which primarily uses roadside data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS). However, the BBS was not designed to estimate population sizes. Therefore, we set out to compare the PIF approach with spatially explicit models incorporating roadside and off-road point-count surveys. We calculated population estimates for 81 landbird species in Bird Conservation Region 6 in Alberta, Canada, using land cover and climate as predictors. We also developed a framework to evaluate how the differences between the detection distance, time-of-day, roadside count, and habitat representation adjustments explain discrepancies between the 2 estimators. We showed that the key assumptions of the PIF population estimator were commonly violated in this region, and that the 2 approaches provided different population estimates for most species. The average differences between estimators were explained by differences in the detection-distance and time-of-day components, but these adjustments left much unexplained variation among species. Differences in the roadside count and habitat representation components explained most of the among-species variation. The variation caused by these factors was large enough to change the population ranking of the species. The roadside count bias needs serious attention when roadside surveys are used to extrapolate over off-road areas. Habitat representation bias is likely prevalent in regions sparsely and non-representatively sampled by roadside surveys, such as the boreal region of North America, and thus population estimates for these regions need to be treated with caution for certain species. Additional sampling and integrated modeling of available data sources can contribute towards more accurate population estimates for conservation in remote areas of North America.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0010-5422</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1938-5129</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2732-4621</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/condor/duaa007</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Waco: University of California Press</publisher><subject>abondance ; abundance ; Animal breeding ; Animal populations ; biais des relevés le long de routes ; biais d′échantillonnage ; Bias ; Birds ; Climate prediction ; Conservation ; detectability ; détectabilité ; Estimates ; Estimators ; Flight ; Habitats ; Land cover ; Ornithology ; Polls &amp; surveys ; Population ; Population statistics ; Representations ; roadside bias ; Roadsides ; sampling bias ; Species ; Time based road use pricing ; Variation ; Wildlife conservation</subject><ispartof>The Condor (Los Angeles, Calif.), 2020-05, Vol.122 (2), p.1-22</ispartof><rights>Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Environment, 2020.</rights><rights>Copyright American Ornithological Society May 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b344t-55871157a4138f3c7bb8bde128ae5836316e90ffc9654a9108180d57c94431263</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b344t-55871157a4138f3c7bb8bde128ae5836316e90ffc9654a9108180d57c94431263</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8492-3384 ; 0000-0003-4900-024X ; 0000-0002-9870-7682 ; 0000-0001-7337-1740</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sólymos, Péter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Toms, Judith D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matsuoka, Steven M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cumming, Steven G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barker, Nicole K. S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thogmartin, Wayne E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stralberg, Diana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Crosby, Andrew D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dénes, Francisco V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haché, Samuel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mahon, C. Lisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmiegelow, Fiona K. A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bayne, Erin M</creatorcontrib><title>Lessons learned from comparing spatially explicit models and the Partners in Flight approach to estimate population sizes of boreal birds in Alberta, Canada</title><title>The Condor (Los Angeles, Calif.)</title><description>Estimating the population abundance of landbirds is a challenging task complicated by the amount, type, and quality of available data. Avian conservationists have relied on population estimates from Partners in Flight (PIF), which primarily uses roadside data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS). However, the BBS was not designed to estimate population sizes. Therefore, we set out to compare the PIF approach with spatially explicit models incorporating roadside and off-road point-count surveys. We calculated population estimates for 81 landbird species in Bird Conservation Region 6 in Alberta, Canada, using land cover and climate as predictors. We also developed a framework to evaluate how the differences between the detection distance, time-of-day, roadside count, and habitat representation adjustments explain discrepancies between the 2 estimators. We showed that the key assumptions of the PIF population estimator were commonly violated in this region, and that the 2 approaches provided different population estimates for most species. The average differences between estimators were explained by differences in the detection-distance and time-of-day components, but these adjustments left much unexplained variation among species. Differences in the roadside count and habitat representation components explained most of the among-species variation. The variation caused by these factors was large enough to change the population ranking of the species. The roadside count bias needs serious attention when roadside surveys are used to extrapolate over off-road areas. Habitat representation bias is likely prevalent in regions sparsely and non-representatively sampled by roadside surveys, such as the boreal region of North America, and thus population estimates for these regions need to be treated with caution for certain species. Additional sampling and integrated modeling of available data sources can contribute towards more accurate population estimates for conservation in remote areas of North America.</description><subject>abondance</subject><subject>abundance</subject><subject>Animal breeding</subject><subject>Animal populations</subject><subject>biais des relevés le long de routes</subject><subject>biais d′échantillonnage</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Birds</subject><subject>Climate prediction</subject><subject>Conservation</subject><subject>detectability</subject><subject>détectabilité</subject><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>Estimators</subject><subject>Flight</subject><subject>Habitats</subject><subject>Land cover</subject><subject>Ornithology</subject><subject>Polls &amp; surveys</subject><subject>Population</subject><subject>Population statistics</subject><subject>Representations</subject><subject>roadside bias</subject><subject>Roadsides</subject><subject>sampling bias</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>Time based road use pricing</subject><subject>Variation</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><issn>0010-5422</issn><issn>1938-5129</issn><issn>2732-4621</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkU9r20AQxZfSQNwk15wHerWS_WtJR2OaNGBID-1ZjLSjeMN6V91dQ93P0g8bNfY9p2HgvTdv-DF2K_id4K26H2KwMd3bAyLn9Se2EK1qKiNk-5ktOBe8MlrKS_Yl51c-71LLBfu3pZxjyOAJUyALY4p7GOJ-wuTCC-QJi0Pvj0B_Ju8GV2AfLfkMGCyUHcEPTCVQyuACPHj3siuA05QiDjsoESgXt8dCMMXp4OewGCC7v5QhjtDHROihd8m--9e-p1RwCRsMaPGaXYzoM92c5xX79fDt5-Z7tX1-fNqst1WvtC6VMU0thKlRC9WMaqj7vuktCdkgmUatlFhRy8dxaFdGYyt4IxpuTT20WishV-qKfT3lzrV_H-bG3Ws8pDCf7KQWXLdGczmr7k6qIcWcE43dlObX0rETvPtPoDsR6M4EZsPyZOhdjIE-kr8BE2aNEQ</recordid><startdate>20200501</startdate><enddate>20200501</enddate><creator>Sólymos, Péter</creator><creator>Toms, Judith D</creator><creator>Matsuoka, Steven M</creator><creator>Cumming, Steven G</creator><creator>Barker, Nicole K. S</creator><creator>Thogmartin, Wayne E</creator><creator>Stralberg, Diana</creator><creator>Crosby, Andrew D</creator><creator>Dénes, Francisco V</creator><creator>Haché, Samuel</creator><creator>Mahon, C. Lisa</creator><creator>Schmiegelow, Fiona K. A</creator><creator>Bayne, Erin M</creator><general>University of California Press</general><general>American Ornithological Society</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8492-3384</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4900-024X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9870-7682</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7337-1740</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200501</creationdate><title>Lessons learned from comparing spatially explicit models and the Partners in Flight approach to estimate population sizes of boreal birds in Alberta, Canada</title><author>Sólymos, Péter ; Toms, Judith D ; Matsuoka, Steven M ; Cumming, Steven G ; Barker, Nicole K. S ; Thogmartin, Wayne E ; Stralberg, Diana ; Crosby, Andrew D ; Dénes, Francisco V ; Haché, Samuel ; Mahon, C. Lisa ; Schmiegelow, Fiona K. A ; Bayne, Erin M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b344t-55871157a4138f3c7bb8bde128ae5836316e90ffc9654a9108180d57c94431263</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>abondance</topic><topic>abundance</topic><topic>Animal breeding</topic><topic>Animal populations</topic><topic>biais des relevés le long de routes</topic><topic>biais d′échantillonnage</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Birds</topic><topic>Climate prediction</topic><topic>Conservation</topic><topic>detectability</topic><topic>détectabilité</topic><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>Estimators</topic><topic>Flight</topic><topic>Habitats</topic><topic>Land cover</topic><topic>Ornithology</topic><topic>Polls &amp; surveys</topic><topic>Population</topic><topic>Population statistics</topic><topic>Representations</topic><topic>roadside bias</topic><topic>Roadsides</topic><topic>sampling bias</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>Time based road use pricing</topic><topic>Variation</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sólymos, Péter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Toms, Judith D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matsuoka, Steven M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cumming, Steven G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barker, Nicole K. S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thogmartin, Wayne E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stralberg, Diana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Crosby, Andrew D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dénes, Francisco V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haché, Samuel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mahon, C. Lisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmiegelow, Fiona K. A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bayne, Erin M</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><jtitle>The Condor (Los Angeles, Calif.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sólymos, Péter</au><au>Toms, Judith D</au><au>Matsuoka, Steven M</au><au>Cumming, Steven G</au><au>Barker, Nicole K. S</au><au>Thogmartin, Wayne E</au><au>Stralberg, Diana</au><au>Crosby, Andrew D</au><au>Dénes, Francisco V</au><au>Haché, Samuel</au><au>Mahon, C. Lisa</au><au>Schmiegelow, Fiona K. A</au><au>Bayne, Erin M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Lessons learned from comparing spatially explicit models and the Partners in Flight approach to estimate population sizes of boreal birds in Alberta, Canada</atitle><jtitle>The Condor (Los Angeles, Calif.)</jtitle><date>2020-05-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>122</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>22</epage><pages>1-22</pages><issn>0010-5422</issn><eissn>1938-5129</eissn><eissn>2732-4621</eissn><abstract>Estimating the population abundance of landbirds is a challenging task complicated by the amount, type, and quality of available data. Avian conservationists have relied on population estimates from Partners in Flight (PIF), which primarily uses roadside data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS). However, the BBS was not designed to estimate population sizes. Therefore, we set out to compare the PIF approach with spatially explicit models incorporating roadside and off-road point-count surveys. We calculated population estimates for 81 landbird species in Bird Conservation Region 6 in Alberta, Canada, using land cover and climate as predictors. We also developed a framework to evaluate how the differences between the detection distance, time-of-day, roadside count, and habitat representation adjustments explain discrepancies between the 2 estimators. We showed that the key assumptions of the PIF population estimator were commonly violated in this region, and that the 2 approaches provided different population estimates for most species. The average differences between estimators were explained by differences in the detection-distance and time-of-day components, but these adjustments left much unexplained variation among species. Differences in the roadside count and habitat representation components explained most of the among-species variation. The variation caused by these factors was large enough to change the population ranking of the species. The roadside count bias needs serious attention when roadside surveys are used to extrapolate over off-road areas. Habitat representation bias is likely prevalent in regions sparsely and non-representatively sampled by roadside surveys, such as the boreal region of North America, and thus population estimates for these regions need to be treated with caution for certain species. Additional sampling and integrated modeling of available data sources can contribute towards more accurate population estimates for conservation in remote areas of North America.</abstract><cop>Waco</cop><pub>University of California Press</pub><doi>10.1093/condor/duaa007</doi><tpages>22</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8492-3384</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4900-024X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9870-7682</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7337-1740</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0010-5422
ispartof The Condor (Los Angeles, Calif.), 2020-05, Vol.122 (2), p.1-22
issn 0010-5422
1938-5129
2732-4621
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2410495402
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); Free E- Journals
subjects abondance
abundance
Animal breeding
Animal populations
biais des relevés le long de routes
biais d′échantillonnage
Bias
Birds
Climate prediction
Conservation
detectability
détectabilité
Estimates
Estimators
Flight
Habitats
Land cover
Ornithology
Polls & surveys
Population
Population statistics
Representations
roadside bias
Roadsides
sampling bias
Species
Time based road use pricing
Variation
Wildlife conservation
title Lessons learned from comparing spatially explicit models and the Partners in Flight approach to estimate population sizes of boreal birds in Alberta, Canada
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T20%3A42%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Lessons%20learned%20from%20comparing%20spatially%20explicit%20models%20and%20the%20Partners%20in%20Flight%20approach%20to%20estimate%20population%20sizes%20of%20boreal%20birds%20in%20Alberta,%20Canada&rft.jtitle=The%20Condor%20(Los%20Angeles,%20Calif.)&rft.au=S%C3%B3lymos,%20P%C3%A9ter&rft.date=2020-05-01&rft.volume=122&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=22&rft.pages=1-22&rft.issn=0010-5422&rft.eissn=1938-5129&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/condor/duaa007&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2410495402%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2410495402&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true