Links
- More information: Publisher Index Page
- Download citation as: RIS | Dublin Core
Abstract
1. We proposed (Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2013, 4) a model for combining telemetry data with spatial capture–recapture (SCR) data that was vigorously criticized by Efford (Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2014, 000, 000). Efford's main claim was that our encounter probability model was incorrect, and therefore our R code and simulation results were wrong.
2. In fact, our encounter probability model is correct under the Poisson point process model that we used as a basis for our integrated model. On the other hand, the basis for Efford's claims clearly rest on the assumption of an alternative model which, while possibly useful, is distinct from that analysed in Royle et al. (Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2013, 4).
3. A key point of Royle et al. (Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2013, 4) was that active resource selection induces heterogeneity in encounter probability which, if unaccounted for, should bias estimates of population size or density. The models of Royle et al. (Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2013, 4) and Efford (Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2014, 000, 000) merely amount to alternative models of resource selection, and hence varying amounts of heterogeneity in encounter probability.
| Publication type | Article |
|---|---|
| Publication Subtype | Journal Article |
| Title | Reply to Efford on ‘Integrating resource selection information with spatial capture-recapture’ |
| Series title | Methods in Ecology and Evolution |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue | 7 |
| Year Published | 2014 |
| Language | English |
| Publisher | British Ecological Society |
| Publisher location | Hoboken, NJ |
| Contributing office(s) | Patuxent Wildlife Research Center |
| Description | 3 p. |
| First page | 603 |
| Last page | 605 |
| Online Only (Y/N) | N |
| Additional Online Files (Y/N) | N |
| Google Analytic Metrics | Metrics page |