Michelle L. Kissling, Paul M. Lukacs, Kelly Nesvacil, Scott M. Gende, Grey W. PendletonPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
<p style="text-align: justify;">A fundamental aspect of ecology is identifying and characterizing population processes. Because a complete census is rare, we almost always use sampling to make inference about the biological population, and the part of the population at risk of sampling is referred to as the statistical population. Ideally, the statistical population is the same as, or accurately represents its corresponding biological population. However, in practice, they rarely align in space and time, which can lead to biased inference. We often view a population misalignment as a temporary emigration process and resolve it with replicate and/or repeat sampling, though this approach is not feasible for all species and habitats. We developed a hierarchical modeling framework to estimate abundance of a biological population of the Kittlitz’s murrelet (<em>Brachyramphus brevirostris</em>), a highly mobile, non-territorial, ice-associated seabird of conservation concern in Alaska and eastern Russia. Our framework combines datasets from boat and telemetry surveys to account for all components of detection probability, specifically using telemetry locations to estimate probability of presence (<em>pp</em>) and line transect distance sampling to estimate probability of detection (<em>pd</em>). By estimating <em>pp</em> directly, we were able to account for temporary emigration from the sampled area, which changed with shifting icefloes between sampling occasions. Between 2007 and 2012, annual <em>pp</em> was highly variable, ranging from 0.33 to 0.75 (median=0.50, standard deviation=0.02), but was not predictable using five environmental covariates. In years when two boat surveys were conducted, our model reduced the coefficient of variation (CV) of abundance estimates for the biological population compared to the statistical population by 13–35%, yet in the year with only one boat survey (2009), the CV skyrocketed about 10-fold, emphasizing the importance of a second survey if <em>pp</em> varies. Although we increased the precision of annual abundance estimates by accounting for <em>pp</em>, we did not see the same improvement in the temporal trend estimate. This result indicates that while we reduced within-year variance, we failed to account for a source(s) of variation across years, which we suspect is related to the propensity for murrelets to skip breeding in some years. Our modeling framework to account for a population misalignment is simple, flexible, and scalable for generating unbiased and precise abundance estimates of highly mobile species that occupy dynamic habitats where other open population models are not possible. Importantly, it improves inference of the biological population, which is the population of interest. We urge ecologists to think critically about the population in which they want to draw inference, especially as tracking technology improves and model complexity increases.</p>
temporary emigration, biological population, statistical population, abundance model, detection probability, seabird, Brachyramphus murrelet, superpopulation
Josh Schmidt (joshua_schmidt@nps.gov), Erik Osnas (erik_osnas@fws.gov), Rebecca Taylor (rebeccataylor@usgs.gov), Martin Raphael (martin.raphael@usda.gov), Adam Duarte (adam.duarte@usda.gov), Thomas Riecke [triecke@cabnr.unr.edu] suggested: Apologies Guillaume, I'm now at the same institution as several of the authors. Perhaps,, Thomas Riecke [triecke@cabnr.unr.edu] suggested: Dan Gibson (dnonne@gmail.com), Thomas Riecke [triecke@cabnr.unr.edu] suggested: Madeleine Lohman (madeleinelohman@gmail.com)
e.g. John Doe john@doe.com
No need for them to be recommenders of PCIEcology. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
