Detecting trends in dragonfly data - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Detecting trends in dragonfly data l.jpg
Download
1 / 30

  • 398 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: Pets / Animals

Detecting trends in dragonfly data. - Difficulties and opportunities - Arco van Strien Statistics Netherlands (CBS). Introduction. Statistics Netherlands’ involvement in monitoring . International: European Wild Bird Indicators European Grassland Butterfly Indicator

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Download Presentation

Detecting trends in dragonfly data

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Detecting trends in dragonfly data l.jpg

Detecting trends in dragonfly data

  • -Difficulties and opportunities -

  • Arco van Strien

  • Statistics Netherlands (CBS)

Introduction


Statistics netherlands involvement in monitoring l.jpg

Statistics Netherlands’ involvement in monitoring

  • International:

  • European Wild Bird Indicators

  • European Grassland Butterfly Indicator

  • European Bats (in development)

  • National:

  • Breeding birds

  • Waterbirds

  • Flora

  • Amphibians

  • Reptiles

  • Butterflies

  • Dragonflies

  • Bats and a few other mammals

  • Lichens

  • Fungi

  • Close co-oparation with NGO’s for each species group

  • NGO’s responsible for field work (mainly by volunteers)

  • Statistics Netherlands responsible for statististical analysis

Introduction


Structure of talk l.jpg

Structure of talk

  • Difficulty 1: Statistical power

  • Difficulty 2: Bias

  • Three monitoring alternatives:

  • No standardisation of field method

  • Strong standardisation & analysis method TRIM

  • Medium standardisation & analysis method Occupancy modeling

  • Combining trends (European perspective)

  • Conclusions

Introduction


Difficulties in trend detection l.jpg

Difficulties in trend detection:

  • Inability to detect existing trends (low statistical power)

  • Even more worse: Biased trend estimates (increase or decline larger or smaller than in reality)

Monitoring schemes need to have:

  • Sufficient statistical power to detect trends

  • No or negligible bias in trend estimates

Introduction


Statistical power is low if l.jpg

Statistical power is low if:

  • Yearly fluctuations in abundance are high

  • Sites have different year-to-year changes

Dragonflies have considerable fluctuations in abundance …

Power


Slide6 l.jpg

Power


Statistical power is low if7 l.jpg

Statistical power is low if:

  • Yearly fluctuations in abundance are high

  • Sites have different year-to-year changes

Remedies:

  • Sufficient sampling effort (= no. of sites; exact no. sites required depends on a.o. field method)

  • Use longer detection period (= wait longer)

Power


Slide8 l.jpg

A longer detection period leads to more accurate trend estimates

Years

Length of time series of smooth snake Coronella austria

Power


Risk of bias is higher if l.jpg

Monitoring schemes need to have:

Risk of bias is higher if:

  • Sufficient statistical power to detect trends

  • No or negligible bias in trend estimates

  • Sampling effort per site is not constant across years

  • Detectability of species is not constant during the season and between years

  • Inadequate sampling strategy applied e.g. dragonfly-rich areas oversampled

Bias


High sampling effort l.jpg

Increasing sampling effort leads to artificial increase

High sampling effort

Index of

species

Low sampling effort

Bias


Risk of bias is higher if11 l.jpg

Risk of bias is higher if:

  • Sampling effort per site is not constant across years

  • Detectability of species is not constant during the season & years

  • Inadequate sampling strategy applied e.g. dragon-rich areas oversampled

Remedies:

  • Standardize sampling effort (field method)

  • Take into account variation in detectability during the season (= multiple visits)

  • Apply adequate sampling strategy (or adjust a posteriori any bias due to unequal sampling)

Bias


Structure of talk12 l.jpg

Structure of talk

  • Difficulty 1: Statistical power

  • Difficulty 2: Bias

  • Three monitoring alternatives:

  • No standardisation of field method

  • Strong standardisation & analysis method TRIM

  • Medium standardisation & analysis method Occupancy modeling

  • Combining trends (European perspective)

  • Conclusions

Alternatives


Slide13 l.jpg

Monitoring alternatives

Alternatives


No standardisation of field method l.jpg

No standardisation of field method

  • As in Atlas studies or studies to compile Red Lists

  • No fixed sites

  • Sampling efforts vary between years

  • No prescription of field method

  • No formal sampling strategy

  • Collecting presence data only

  • >>>>

  • Statistical power low (only sensitive to pick up strong declines & increases in distribution)

  • Risk of bias considerable due to not constant sampling efforts

  • Statistical analysis: simple comparison of distribution data (or a statistical method)

Alternatives


Strong standardisation of field method l.jpg

Strong standardisation of field method

  • As in dragonfly scheme in the Netherlands

  • Fixed sites (500 m - 1 km long)

  • Yearly surveys

  • Multiple visits per year (during the season)

  • Detailed prescription of field method (fixed sampling effort per site)

  • Sampling strategy: preferably (stratified) random choice of sites

  • Collecting count data

  • >>>>

  • Statistical power high

  • Risk of bias low

  • Statistical analysis: TRIM

TRIM


Slide16 l.jpg

  • TRIM version 3

  • Poisson regression (loglinear models, GLM) for count data

Pannekoek, J. & A van Strien, 2001. TRIM 3. Statistics Netherlands, Voorburg

TRIM


Trim tr ends and i ndices for m onitoring data l.jpg

TRIM: Trends and Indices for Monitoring data

  • Specially developed by Statistics Netherlands for wildlife monitoring based on count data

  • Statistical heart of wildlife monitoring data analysis

  • Internationally accepted and in use in many European countries

  • Easy to use

  • Freeware

  • Calculates yearly indices

TRIM


Slide18 l.jpg

INDEX: the total (= sum of al sites) for a

year divided by the total of the base year

TRIM


Slide19 l.jpg

  • Statistical characteristics of TRIM

  • Produces yearly indices and overall trends per species

  • Produces confidence intervals

  • Include overdispersion & serial correlation in models

  • Goodness-of-fit tests for comparing models

  • Covariates to test trends between sets of sites

  • Weight factors may be included to improve representativeness if sites are not randomly selected

  • Imputation of missing values

TRIM


Slide20 l.jpg

Imputation of missing counts required to compute correct indices

TRIM


Medium standardisation of field method l.jpg

Medium standardisation of field method

  • To be developed, but think of:

  • Preferably fixed sites

  • Survey per site once every 2-3 years

  • Multiple visits per year (during the season)

  • Limited prescription of sampling effort per site, e.g. 1 hour field work

  • Sampling strategy: preferably (stratified) random choice of sites

  • Collecting presence/absence data per site per visit (or abundance categories)

  • >>>

  • Power not high

  • Risk of bias low

  • Statistical analysis: Occupancy modeling to adjust for bias due to limited standardisation

Occupancy


Slide22 l.jpg

Occupancy modeling: Recent developments in statistical methods make it possible to estimate area of occupancy while taking into account the detectability of species (which may differ according to e.g. not constant sampling efforts)Based on absence/presence data from repeated visits (capture-recapture)Statistical method is in developmentFreeware (PRESENCE, MARK)

MacKenzie, D.I., J.D. Nichols, J.A. Royle, K.H. Pollock, L.L. Bailey & J.E. Hines, 2006. Occupancy estimation and modeling. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Occupancy


Occupancy modeling uses capture histories per site to separate occupancy and detectability l.jpg

Occupancy modeling uses capture histories per site to separate occupancy and detectability

Simple example

area of occupancy 100%detection probability per visit 50%

area of occupancy 50%detection probability per visit 100%

Occupancy


Slide24 l.jpg

  • Statistical characteristics of Occupancy modeling

  • Produces estimate of area of occupancy per year (or period), taking into account detectability of species

  • Comparing area of occupancy per period >> trend

  • Produces confidence intervals

  • Allows missing values

  • Covariates to allow for effect of e.g. temperature during visit, incompleteness of survey etc.

  • Weighting procedure (if sites are not randomly selected) to be developed

Occupancy


Structure of talk25 l.jpg

Structure of talk

  • Difficulty 1: Statistical power

  • Difficulty 2: Bias

  • Three monitoring alternatives:

  • No standardisation of field method

  • Strong standardisation & analysis method TRIM

  • Medium standardisation & analysis method Occupancy modeling

  • Combining trends (European perspective)

  • Conclusions

Combining trends


Slide26 l.jpg

Combining TRIM results per country, weighted by population sizes, is well-developed

Yearly population size of

species A in country 1

Yearly population size of

species A in country 2

European

population trend of

species A

Yearly population size of

species A in country 3

Yearly population size of

species A in country 4

A. van Strien, J. Pannekoek & D. Gibbons, 2001. Bird Study 48:200-213

Combining trends


Slide27 l.jpg

Example of combining TRIM results of countries:

Pan-Euromonitoring Common Bird Monitoring project producing Farmland Wild Bird Indicator (EU biodiversity indicator)

Gregory R.D., van Strien, A., Vorisek P. et al., 2005. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 360: 269-288

Gregory, R.D., Vorisek, P., van Strien, A. et al., 2007. Ibis, 49, s2, 78-97

Combining trends


Slide28 l.jpg

Combining areas of occupancy per country, weighted by areas, appears possible (but needs to be developed)

Yearly occupancy area of

species A in country 1

Yearly occupancy area of

species A in country 2

European trend in

occupancy area of

species A

Yearly occupancy area of

species A in country 3

Yearly occupancy area of

species A in country 4

Combining trends


Scores of alternatives l.jpg

Scores of alternatives

Conclusions


Slide30 l.jpg

  • Conclusions

  • Statistical enemies of monitoring: low power and bias

  • Standardisation of sampling effort helps to increase power and to reduce bias

  • Monitoring based on strong standardisation: high power & little bias. But it requires considerable sampling efforts

  • If strong standardisation is not feasible, consider medium standardisation: lower power, but again little bias (if detection probabilities are taken into account)

  • For both alternatives statistical methods are available

  • Both alternatives enable to combine trends across countries

Conclusions


  • Login