Improving precision and reducing bias in biological surveys: estimating false-negative error rates

The use of presence/absence data in wildlife management and biological surveys is widespread. There is a growing interest in quantifying the sources of error associated with these data. We show that false-negative errors (failure to record a species when in fact it is present) can have a significant impact on statistical estimation of habitat models using simulated data. Then we introduce an extension of logistic modeling, the zero-inflated binomial (ZIB) model that permits the estimation of the rate of false-negative errors and the correction of estimates of the probability of occurrence for false-negative errors by using repeated. visits to the same site. Our simulations show that even relatively low rates of false negatives bias statistical estimates of habitat effects. The method with three repeated visits eliminates the bias, but estimates are relatively imprecise. Six repeated visits improve precision of estimates to levels comparable to that achieved with conventional statistics in the absence of false-negative errors In general, when error rates are less than or equal to50% greater efficiency is gained by adding more sites, whereas when error rates are >50% it is better to increase the number of repeated visits. We highlight the flexibility of the method with three case studies, clearly demonstrating the effect of false-negative errors for a range of commonly used survey methods

Modelling Transmission of Vector-Borne Pathogens Shows Complex Dynamics When Vector Feeding Sites Are Limited

The relationship between species richness and the prevalence of vector-borne disease has been widely studied with a range of outcomes. Increasing the number of host species for a pathogen may decrease infection prevalence (dilution effect), increase it (amplification), or have no effect. We derive a general model, and a specific implementation, which show that when the number of vector feeding sites on each host is limiting, the effects on pathogen dynamics of host population size are more complex than previously thought. The model examines vector-borne disease in the presence of different host species that are either competent or incompetent (i.e. that cannot transmit the pathogen to vectors) as reservoirs for the pathogen. With a single host species present, the basic reproduction ratio R0 is a non-monotonic function of the population size of host individuals (H), i.e. a value exists that maximises R0. Surprisingly, if a reduction in host population size may actually increase R0. Extending this model to a two-host species system, incompetent individuals from the second host species can alter the value of which may reverse the effect on pathogen prevalence of host population reduction. We argue that when vector-feeding sites on hosts are limiting, the net effect of increasing host diversity might not be correctly predicted using simple frequency-dependent epidemiological models

The needs of foster children and how to satisfy them:A systematic review of the literature

Family foster care deeply influences the needs of children and how these are satisfied. To increase our knowledge of foster children’s needs and how these are conceptualized, this paper presents a systematic literature review. Sixty- four empirical articles from six databases were reviewed and categorized (inter-rater agreement K = .78) into four categories: medical, belongingness, psychological and self-actualization needs. The results give a complete overview of needs that are specific to foster children, and what can be implemented to satisfy these needs. This study shows psychological needs are studied more often compared to the other categories, which specially relates to much attention for mental health problems. Furthermore, most articles focus on how to satisfy the needs of foster children and provide no definition or concrete conceptualization of needs. Strikingly, many articles focus on children’s problems instead of their needs, and some even use these terms interchangeably. This review illustrates that future research should employ a proper conceptualization of needs, which could also initiate a shift in thinking about needs instead of problems

Drive counts as a method of estimating ungulate density in forests: mission impossible?

Although drive counts are frequently used to estimate the size of deer populations in forests, little is known about how counting methods or the density and social organization of the deer species concerned influence the accuracy of the estimates obtained, and hence their suitability for informing management decisions. As these issues cannot readily be examined for real populations, we conducted a series of ‘virtual experiments’ in a computer simulation model to evaluate the effects of block size, proportion of forest counted, deer density, social aggregation and spatial auto-correlation on the accuracy of drive counts. Simulated populations of red and roe deer were generated on the basis of drive count data obtained from Polish commercial forests. For both deer species, count accuracy increased with increasing density, and decreased as the degree of aggregation, either demographic or spatial, within the population increased. However, the effect of density on accuracy was substantially greater than the effect of aggregation. Although improvements in accuracy could be made by reducing the size of counting blocks for low-density, aggregated populations, these were limited. Increasing the proportion of the forest counted led to greater improvements in accuracy, but the gains were limited compared with the increase in effort required. If it is necessary to estimate the deer population with a high degree of accuracy (e.g. within 10% of the true value), drive counts are likely to be inadequate whatever the deer density. However, if a lower level of accuracy (within 20% or more) is acceptable, our study suggests that at higher deer densities (more than ca. five to seven deer/100 ha) drive counts can provide reliable information on population size

Are We Predicting the Actual or Apparent Distribution of Temperate Marine Fishes?

Planning for resilience is the focus of many marine conservation programs and initiatives. These efforts aim to inform conservation strategies for marine regions to ensure they have inbuilt capacity to retain biological diversity and ecological function in the face of global environmental change – particularly changes in climate and resource exploitation. In the absence of direct biological and ecological information for many marine species, scientists are increasingly using spatially-explicit, predictive-modeling approaches. Through the improved access to multibeam sonar and underwater video technology these models provide spatial predictions of the most suitable regions for an organism at resolutions previously not possible. However, sensible-looking, well-performing models can provide very different predictions of distribution depending on which occurrence dataset is used. To examine this, we construct species distribution models for nine temperate marine sedentary fishes for a 25.7 km2 study region off the coast of southeastern Australia. We use generalized linear model (GLM), generalized additive model (GAM) and maximum entropy (MAXENT) to build models based on co-located occurrence datasets derived from two underwater video methods (i.e. baited and towed video) and fine-scale multibeam sonar based seafloor habitat variables. Overall, this study found that the choice of modeling approach did not considerably influence the prediction of distributions based on the same occurrence dataset. However, greater dissimilarity between model predictions was observed across the nine fish taxa when the two occurrence datasets were compared (relative to models based on the same dataset). Based on these results it is difficult to draw any general trends in regards to which video method provides more reliable occurrence datasets. Nonetheless, we suggest predictions reflecting the species apparent distribution (i.e. a combination of species distribution and the probability of detecting it). Consequently, we also encourage researchers and marine managers to carefully interpret model predictions

Catastrophic Floods May Pave the Way for Increased Genetic Diversity in Endemic Artesian Spring Snail Populations

The role of disturbance in the promotion of biological heterogeneity is widely recognised and occurs at a variety of ecological and evolutionary scales. However, within species, the impact of disturbances that decimate populations are neither predicted nor known to result in conditions that promote genetic diversity. Directly examining the population genetic consequences of catastrophic disturbances however, is rarely possible, as it requires both longitudinal genetic data sets and serendipitous timing. Our long-term study of the endemic aquatic invertebrates of the artesian spring ecosystem of arid central Australia has presented such an opportunity. Here we show a catastrophic flood event, which caused a near total population crash in an aquatic snail species (Fonscochlea accepta) endemic to this ecosystem, may have led to enhanced levels of within species genetic diversity. Analyses of individuals sampled and genotyped from the same springs sampled both pre (1988–1990) and post (1995, 2002–2006) a devastating flood event in 1992, revealed significantly higher allelic richness, reduced temporal population structuring and greater effective population sizes in nearly all post flood populations. Our results suggest that the response of individual species to disturbance and severe population bottlenecks is likely to be highly idiosyncratic and may depend on both their ecology (whether they are resilient or resistant to disturbance) and the stability of the environmental conditions (i.e. frequency and intensity of disturbances) in which they have evolved

BIOFRAG: A new database for analysing BIOdiversity responses to forest FRAGmentation

Habitat fragmentation studies are producing inconsistent and complex results across which it is nearly impossible to synthesise. Consistent analytical techniques can be applied to primary datasets, if stored in a flexible database that allows simple data retrieval for subsequent analyses. Method: We developed a relational database linking data collected in the field to taxonomic nomenclature, spatial and temporal plot attributes and further environmental variables (e.g. information on biogeographic region. Typical field assessments include measures of biological variables (e.g. presence, abundance, ground cover) of one species or a set of species linked to a set of plots in fragments of a forested landscape. Conclusion: The database currently holds records of 5792 unique species sampled in 52 landscapes in six of eight biogeographic regions: mammals 173, birds 1101, herpetofauna 284, insects 2317, other arthropods: 48, plants 1804, snails 65. Most species are found in one or two landscapes, but some are found in four. Using the huge amount of primary data on biodiversity response to fragmentation becomes increasingly important as anthropogenic pressures from high population growth and land demands are increasing. This database can be queried to extract data for subsequent analyses of the biological response to forest fragmentation with new metrics that can integrate across the components of fragmented landscapes. Meta-analyses of findings based on consistent methods and metrics will be able to generalise over studies allowing inter-comparisons for unified answers. The database can thus help researchers in providing findings for analyses of trade-offs between land use benefits and impacts on biodiversity and to track performance of management for biodiversity conservation in human-modified landscapes.Fil: Pfeifer, Marion. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Lefebvre, Veronique. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Gardner, Toby A.. Stockholm Environment Institute; SueciaFil: Arroyo Rodríguez, Víctor. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; MéxicoFil: Baeten, Lander. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Banks Leite, Cristina. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Barlow, Jos. Lancaster University; Reino UnidoFil: Betts, Matthew G.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Brunet, Joerg. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; SueciaFil: Cerezo Blandón, Alexis Mauricio. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Departamento de Métodos Cuantitativos y Sistemas de Información; ArgentinaFil: Cisneros, Laura M.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Collard, Stuart. Nature Conservation Society of South Australia; AustraliaFil: D´Cruze, Neil. The World Society for the Protection of Animals; Reino UnidoFil: Da Silva Motta, Catarina. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia; BrasilFil: Duguay, Stephanie. Carleton University; CanadáFil: Eggermont, Hilde. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Eigenbrod, Félix. University of Southampton; Reino UnidoFil: Hadley, Adam S.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Hanson, Thor R.. No especifíca;Fil: Hawes, Joseph E.. University of East Anglia; Reino UnidoFil: Heartsill Scalley, Tamara. United State Department of Agriculture. Forestry Service; Puerto RicoFil: Klingbeil, Brian T.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Kolb, Annette. Universitat Bremen; AlemaniaFil: Kormann, Urs. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Kumar, Sunil. State University of Colorado - Fort Collins; Estados UnidosFil: Lachat, Thibault. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest; SuizaFil: Lakeman Fraser, Poppy. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Lantschner, María Victoria. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Patagonia Norte. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria San Carlos de Bariloche; ArgentinaFil: Laurance, William F.. James Cook University; AustraliaFil: Leal, Inara R.. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Lens, Luc. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Marsh, Charles J.. University of Leeds; Reino UnidoFil: Medina Rangel, Guido F.. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; ColombiaFil: Melles, Stephanie. University of Toronto; CanadáFil: Mezger, Dirk. Field Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Oldekop, Johan A.. University of Sheffield; Reino UnidoFil: Overal , Williams L.. Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Departamento de Entomologia; BrasilFil: Owen, Charlotte. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Peres, Carlos A.. University of East Anglia; Reino UnidoFil: Phalan, Ben. University of Southampton; Reino UnidoFil: Pidgeon, Anna Michle. University of Wisconsin; Estados UnidosFil: Pilia, Oriana. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Possingham, Hugh P.. Imperial College London; Reino Unido. The University Of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Possingham, Max L.. No especifíca;Fil: Raheem, Dinarzarde C.. Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences; Bélgica. Natural History Museum; Reino UnidoFil: Ribeiro, Danilo B.. Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul; BrasilFil: Ribeiro Neto, Jose D.. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Robinson, Douglas W.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Robinson, Richard. Manjimup Research Centre; AustraliaFil: Rytwinski, Trina. Carleton University; CanadáFil: Scherber, Christoph. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Slade, Eleanor M.. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Somarriba, Eduardo. Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza; Costa RicaFil: Stouffer, Philip C.. State University of Louisiana; Estados UnidosFil: Struebig, Matthew J.. University of Kent; Reino UnidoFil: Tylianakis, Jason M.. University College London; Estados Unidos. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Teja, Tscharntke. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Tyre, Andrew J.. Universidad de Nebraska - Lincoln; Estados UnidosFil: Urbina Cardona, Jose N.. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana; ColombiaFil: Vasconcelos, Heraldo L.. Universidade Federal de Uberlandia; BrasilFil: Wearn, Oliver. Imperial College London; Reino Unido. The Zoological Society of London; Reino UnidoFil: Wells, Konstans. University of Adelaide; AustraliaFil: Willig, Michael R.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Wood, Eric. University of Wisconsin; Estados UnidosFil: Young, Richard P.. Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust; Reino UnidoFil: Bradley, Andrew V.. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Ewers, Robert M.. Imperial College London; Reino Unid

Optimising sampling and analysis protocols in environmental DNA studies

Ecological surveys risk incurring false negative and false positive detections of the target species. With indirect survey methods, such as environmental DNA, such error can occur at two stages: sample collection and laboratory analysis. Here we analyse a large qPCR based eDNA data set using two occupancy models, one of which accounts for false positive error by Griffin et al. (2020), and a second that assumes no false positive error by Stratton et al. (2020). Additionally, we apply the Griffin et al. (2020) model to simulated data to determine optimal levels of replication at both sampling stages. The Stratton et al. (2020) model, which assumes no false positive results, consistently overestimated both overall and individual site occupancy compared to both the Griffin et al. (2020) model and to previous estimates of pond occupancy for the target species. The inclusion of replication at both stages of eDNA analysis (sample collection and in the laboratory) reduces both bias and credible interval width in estimates of both occupancy and detectability. Even the collection of >1 sample from a site can improve parameter estimates more than having a high number of replicates only within the laboratory analysis