Modeling misidentification errors in capture–recapture studies using photographic identification of evolving marks

Misidentification of animals is potentially important when naturally existing features (natural tags) are used to identify individual animals in a capture–recapture study. Photographic identification (photoID) typically uses photographic images of animals' naturally existing features as tags (p...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inEcology (Durham) Vol. 90; no. 1; pp. 3 - 9
Main Authors Yoshizaki, Jun, Pollock, Kenneth H, Brownie, Cavell, Webster, Raymond A
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Ecological Society of America 2009
Subjects
Online AccessGet more information

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Misidentification of animals is potentially important when naturally existing features (natural tags) are used to identify individual animals in a capture–recapture study. Photographic identification (photoID) typically uses photographic images of animals' naturally existing features as tags (photographic tags) and is subject to two main causes of identification errors: those related to quality of photographs (non‐evolving natural tags) and those related to changes in natural marks (evolving natural tags). The conventional methods for analysis of capture–recapture data do not account for identification errors, and to do so requires a detailed understanding of the misidentification mechanism. Focusing on the situation where errors are due to evolving natural tags, we propose a misidentification mechanism and outline a framework for modeling the effect of misidentification in closed population studies. We introduce methods for estimating population size based on this model. Using a simulation study, we show that conventional estimators can seriously overestimate population size when errors due to misidentification are ignored, and that, in comparison, our new estimators have better properties except in cases with low capture probabilities (<0.2) or low misidentification rates (<2.5%).
Bibliography:http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/08-0304.1
ISSN:0012-9658
DOI:10.1890/08-0304.1