Accommodating False Positives Within Acoustic Spatial Capture–Recapture, with Variable Source Levels, Noisy Bearings and an Inhomogeneous Spatial Density

Felix T. Petersma (), Len Thomas, Aaron M. Thode, Danielle Harris, Tiago A. Marques, Gisela V. Cheoo and Katherine H. Kim
Additional contact information
Felix T. Petersma: University of St Andrews
Len Thomas: University of St Andrews
Aaron M. Thode: University of California San Diego
Danielle Harris: University of St Andrews
Tiago A. Marques: University of St Andrews
Gisela V. Cheoo: Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa
Katherine H. Kim: Greeneridge Sciences, Inc.

Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, 2024, vol. 29, issue 3, No 4, 490 pages

Abstract: Abstract Passive acoustic monitoring is a promising method for surveying wildlife populations that are easier to detect acoustically than visually. When animal vocalisations can be uniquely identified on an array of sensors, the potential exists to estimate population density through acoustic spatial capture–recapture (ASCR). However, sound classification is imperfect, and in some situations, a high proportion of sounds detected on just a single sensor (‘singletons’) are not from the target species. We present a case study of bowhead whale calls (Baleana mysticetus) collected in the Beaufort Sea in 2010 containing such false positives. We propose a novel extension of ASCR that is robust to false positives by truncating singletons and conditioning on calls being detected by at least two sensors. We allow for individual-level detection heterogeneity through modelling a variable sound source level, model inhomogeneous call spatial density, and include bearings with varying measurement error. We show via simulation that the method produces near-unbiased estimates when correctly specified. Ignoring source-level variation resulted in a strong negative bias, while ignoring inhomogeneous density resulted in severe positive bias. The case study analysis indicated a band of higher call density approximately 30 km from shore; 59.8% of singletons were estimated to have been false positives.

Keywords: Bioacoustics; Bowhead whale; Estimating animal abundance; Passive acoustic density estimation; Spatially explicit capture recapture; Wildlife population assessment (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13253-023-00563-0 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:jagbes:v:29:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s13253-023-00563-0

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/journal/13253

DOI: 10.1007/s13253-023-00563-0

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics is currently edited by Stephen Buckland

More articles in Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics from Springer, The International Biometric Society, American Statistical Association
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().