Generalized model‐based solutions to false‐positive error in species detection/nondetection data

Abstract

Detection/nondetection data are widely collected by ecologists interested in estimating species distributions, abundances, and phenology, and are often imperfect. Recent model development has focused on accounting for both false-positive and false-negative errors given evidence that misclassification is common across many sampling protocols. To date, however, model-based solutions to false-positive error have largely addressed occupancy estimation. We describe a generalized model structure that allows investigators to account for false-positive error in detection/nondetection data across a broad range of ecological parameters and model classes, and demonstrate that previously developed model-based solutions are special cases of the generalized model. Simulation results demonstrate that estimators for abundance and migratory arrival time ignoring false-positive error exhibit severe (20-70%) relative bias even when only 5-10% of detections are false positives. Bias increased when false-positive detections were more likely to occur at sites or within occasions in which true positive detections were unlikely to occur. Models accounting for false-positive error following the site-confirmation or observation-confirmation designs generally reduced bias substantially, even when few detections were confirmed as true or false positives or when the process model for false-positive error was misspecified. Results from an empirical example focusing on gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) abundance in Wisconsin, USA reinforce concerns that biases induced by false-positive error can also distort spatial predictions often used to guide decision making. Model sensitivity to false-positive error extends well beyond occupancy estimation, but encouragingly, model-based solutions developed for occupancy estimators are generalizable and effective across a range of models widely used in ecological research.

Topics & Concepts