Abstract:State variables such as abundance and occurrence of species are central to many questions in ecology and conservation, but our ability to detect and enumerate species is imperfect and often varies across space and time. Accounting for imperfect and variable detection is important for obtaining unbiased estimates of state variables. Here, I investigate whether closed spatial capture-recapture (SCR) and single season occupancy models are robust to ignoring temporal variation in detection probability. Ignoring temporal variation allows collapsing detection data across repeated sampling occasions, speeding up computations, which can be important when analyzing large datasets with complex models. I simulated data under different scenarios of temporal and spatio-temporal variation in detection, analyzed data with the data-generating model and an alternative model ignoring temporal variation in detection, and compared estimates between these two models with respect to relative bias, coefficient of variation (CV) and relative root mean squared error (RMSE). SCR model estimates of abundance, the density-covariate coefficient β and the movement-related scale parameter of the detection function σ were robust to ignoring temporal variation in detection, with relative bias, CV and RMSE of the two models generally being within 4% of each other. An SCR case study for brown tree snakes showed identical estimates of density and σ under models accounting for or ignoring temporal variation in detection. Occupancy model estimates of the occupancy-covariate coefficient β and average occupancy were also largely robust to ignoring temporal variation in detection, and differences in occupancy predictions were mostly <<0.1. But there was a slight tendency for bias in β under the alternative model to increase when detection varied more strongly over time. Thus, when temporal variation in detection is extreme, it may be necessary to model that variation to avoid bias in parameter estimates in occupancy models. An occupancy case study for ten bird species with a more complex model structure showed considerable differences in occupancy parameter estimates under models accounting for or ignoring temporal variation in detection; but estimates and predictions from the latter were always within 95% confidence intervals of the former. There are cases where we cannot or may not want to ignore temporal variation in detection: a behavioral response to detection and certain SCR observation models do not allow collapsing data across sampling occasions; and temporal variation in detection may be informative of species phenology/behavior or for future study planning. But this study shows that it can be safely ignored under a range of conditions when analyzing SCR or occupancy data.

The importance of independence in unmarked spatial capture–recapture analysis

Consequences of ignoring variable and spatially autocorrelated detection probability in spatial capture-recapture

Explicit modeling of density dependence in spatial capture-recapture models

Integrating Resource Selection Information with Spatial Capture-Recapture

Modelling spatially autocorrelated detection probabilities in spatial capture-recapture using random effects

Explaining detection heterogeneity with finite mixture and non-Euclidean movement in spatially explicit capture-recapture models

Spatial Capture-recapture with Partial Identity

A Unifying Model for Capture-Recapture and Distance Sampling Surveys of Wildlife Populations

Independence in Integrated Population Models

Unravelling the effects of individual heterogeneity on connectivity estimates: Insights from Spatial Capture-Recapture modelling

Incorporating Memory into Continuous-Time Spatial Capture-Recapture Models

M or not M : Temporal variation in detection probability in spatial capture-recapture and occupancy models

Evaluating tools for capture-recapture model selection to estimate the size of hidden populations: It works in practice, but does it work in theory?

Population size estimation with capture-recapture in presence of individual misidentification and low recapture

An integrated path for spatial capture-recapture and animal movement modeling

Modeling spatiotemporal abundance and movement dynamics using an integrated spatial capture-recapture movement model

Improved state-space models for inference about spatial and temporal variation in abundance from count data

Improving inference for nonlinear state-space models of animal population dynamics given biased sequential life stage data

Sources of bias in applying close‐kin mark–recapture to terrestrial game species with different life histories

Geostatistical capture–recapture models

A Nonparametric Approach to the Analysis of Two-Stage Mark-Recapture Experiments