Patricia C. Fontaine | Search USGS

USGS2018

Evaluating time-removal models for estimating availability of boreal birds during point count surveys: Sample size requirements and model complexity

We used conventional and finite mixture removal models with and without time-varying covariates to evaluate availability given presence for 152 bird species using data from point counts in boreal North America. We found that the choice of model had an impact on the estimability of unknown model parameters and affected the bias and variance of corrected counts. Finite mixture models provided better fit than conventional removal models and better adjusted for count duration. However, reliably estimating parameters and minimizing variance using mixture models required at least 200–1,000 detections. Mixture models with time-varying proportions of infrequent singers were best supported across species, indicating that accounting for date- and time-related heterogeneity is important when combining data across studies over large spatial scales, multiple sampling time frames, or variable survey protocols. Our flexible and continuous time-removal modeling framework can be used to account for such heterogeneity through the incorporation of easily obtainable covariates, such as methods, date, time, and location. Accounting for availability bias in bird surveys allows for better integration of disparate studies at large spatial scales and better adjustment of local, regional, and continental population size estimates.

Condor↗

USGS2014

Reviving common standards in point-count surveys for broad inference across studies

We revisit the common standards recommended by Ralph et al. (1993, 1995a) for conducting point-count surveys to assess the relative abundance of landbirds breeding in North America. The standards originated from discussions among ornithologists in 1991 and were developed so that point-count survey data could be broadly compared and jointly analyzed by national data centers with the goals of monitoring populations and managing habitat. Twenty years later, we revisit these standards because (1) they have not been universally followed and (2) new methods allow estimation of absolute abundance from point counts, but these methods generally require data beyond the original standards to account for imperfect detection. Lack of standardization and the complications it introduces for analysis become apparent from aggregated data. For example, only 3% of 196,000 point counts conducted during the period 1992-2011 across Alaska and Canada followed the standards recommended for the count period and count radius. Ten-minute, unlimited-count-radius surveys increased the number of birds detected by >300% over 3-minute, 50-m-radius surveys. This effect size, which could be eliminated by standardized sampling, was ≥10 times the published effect sizes of observers, time of day, and date of the surveys. We suggest that the recommendations by Ralph et al. (1995a) continue to form the common standards when conducting point counts. This protocol is inexpensive and easy to follow but still allows the surveys to be adjusted for detection probabilities. Investigators might optionally collect additional information so that they can analyze their data with more flexible forms of removal and time-of-detection models, distance sampling, multiple-observer methods, repeated counts, or combinations of these methods. Maintaining the common standards as a base protocol, even as these study-specific modifications are added, will maximize the value of point-count data, allowing compilation and analysis by regional and national data centers.

Condor↗