Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Will Observation Error and Biases Ruin the Use of Simple Extinction Models?

Will Observation Error and Biases Ruin the Use of Simple Extinction Models? Abstract: Estimating the risk of extinction for populations of endangered species is an important component of conservation biology. These estimates must be made from data that contain both environmental noise in the year‐to‐year transitions in population size (so‐called “process error”), random errors in sampling, and possible biases in sampling ( both forms of observation errors). To determine how much faith to place in estimated extinction rates, it is important to know how sensitive they are to observation error. We used three simple, commonly employed models of population dynamics to generate simulated population time series. We then combined random observation error or systematic biases with those data, fit models to the time series data, and observed how close the extinction dynamics of the fitted models compared with the dynamics of the underlying models. We found that systematic biases in sampling rarely affected estimates of extinction risk. We also found that even moderate levels of random observation error do not significantly affect extinction estimates except over a small range of process errors, corresponding to the region where extinction risk is most uncertain. With more substantial sampling error, estimates of extinction risk degraded rapidly. Field census techniques for a variety of taxa often involve observation errors within ±32% of actual population sizes. For typical time series used in conservation, therefore, we often may not need to be overly concerned about observation errors as an extra source of imperfection in our estimated extinction rates. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Conservation Biology Wiley

Will Observation Error and Biases Ruin the Use of Simple Extinction Models?

Meir, Eli; Fagan, William F.
Conservation Biology , Volume 14 (1) – Feb 1, 2000
Download PDF
7 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/will-observation-error-and-biases-ruin-the-use-of-simple-extinction-JyZ1o23ND4

References (17)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0888-8892
eISSN
1523-1739
DOI
10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98502.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract: Estimating the risk of extinction for populations of endangered species is an important component of conservation biology. These estimates must be made from data that contain both environmental noise in the year‐to‐year transitions in population size (so‐called “process error”), random errors in sampling, and possible biases in sampling ( both forms of observation errors). To determine how much faith to place in estimated extinction rates, it is important to know how sensitive they are to observation error. We used three simple, commonly employed models of population dynamics to generate simulated population time series. We then combined random observation error or systematic biases with those data, fit models to the time series data, and observed how close the extinction dynamics of the fitted models compared with the dynamics of the underlying models. We found that systematic biases in sampling rarely affected estimates of extinction risk. We also found that even moderate levels of random observation error do not significantly affect extinction estimates except over a small range of process errors, corresponding to the region where extinction risk is most uncertain. With more substantial sampling error, estimates of extinction risk degraded rapidly. Field census techniques for a variety of taxa often involve observation errors within ±32% of actual population sizes. For typical time series used in conservation, therefore, we often may not need to be overly concerned about observation errors as an extra source of imperfection in our estimated extinction rates.

Journal

Conservation Biology – Wiley

Published: Feb 1, 2000

There are no references for this article.