Correcting for differences in detection probabilities
Method
Having carried out a survey of a species in a particular habitat, we often wish to compare our results with those of other similar studies. This is often easier said than done because to do so using the raw, or unadjusted, counts, you must assume that the probability of detecting birds is the same in each study. It is, however,unavoidable that some birds present in your study area will go undetected regardless of how well the survey is carried out. ‘Detectability’ is a key concept in wildlife surveys and needs to be assessed carefully. A comparison of unadjusted counts will be valid only if the numbers represent a constant proportion of the actual population present across space and time. This assumption is at best questionable and has been a matter of much debate
Correcting for differences in detection probabilities
Method
Having carried out a survey of a species in a particular habitat, we often wish to compare our results with those of other similar studies. This is often easier said than done because to do so using the raw, or unadjusted, counts, you must assume that the probability of detecting birds is the same in each study. It is, however,unavoidable that some birds present in your study area will go undetected regardless of how well the survey is carried out. ‘Detectability’ is a key concept in wildlife surveys and needs to be assessed carefully. A comparison of unadjusted counts will be valid only if the numbers represent a constant proportion of the actual population present across space and time. This assumption is at best questionable and has been a matter of much debate
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..