Abstract:Wildlife surveys often seek to determine the presence or absence of species at sites. Such data may be used in population monitoring, impact assessment, and species– habitat analyses. An implicit assumption of presence/absence surveys is that if a species is not detected in one or more visits to a site, it is absent from that site. However, it is rarely if ever possible to be completely sure that a species is absent, and false negative observation errors may arise when detection probabilities are less than 1. The detectability of species in wildlife surveys is one of the most important sources of uncertainty in determining the proportion of a landscape that is occupied by a species. Recent studies emphasize the need to acknowledge and incorporate false negative observation error rates in the analysis of site occupancy data, although a comparative study of the range of available methods for estimating detectability and occupancy is notably absent. The motivation for this study stems from the lack of guidance in the literature about the relative merits of alternative methods for estimating detection probabilities and site occupancy proportions from presence/absence survey data. Six approaches to estimating underlying detection probabilities and the proportion of sites occupied from binary observation data are reviewed. These include three parametric methods based on binomial mixtures, one nonparametric approach based on mark–recapture theory, and two approaches based on simplistic assumptions about occupancy rates. We compare the performance of each method using simulated data for which the “true” underlying detection rate is known. Simulated data were realized from a beta‐binomial distribution, incorporating a realistic level of variation in detection rates. Estimation methods varied in their precision and bias. The “binomial‐with‐added‐zeros” mixture model, estimated by maximum likelihood, was the least biased estimator of detection probability and, therefore, occupancy rate. We provide an Excel spreadsheet to execute all of the methods reviewed. Stand‐alone programs such as PRESENCE may be used to estimate all models including the “binomial with added zeros” model. Our findings lend support to the use of maximum likelihood methods in estimating site occupancy and detectability rates.

Does Detecting More Defects Contribute to Better Estimation? an Empirical Investigation to the Capture-Recapture Method.

A Method to Evaluate Estimates Produced by the Capture-Recapture Model.

An Empirical Evaluation of Capture-Recapture Estimators in Software Inspection

An Empirical Study on Independence-Driven Data Selection for Improving Capture-Recapture Estimation

Towards Confidence with Capture-recapture Estimation

The adoption of capture-recapture in software engineering: a systematic literature review

Automatic, High Accuracy Prediction of Reopened Bugs

Accurate Developer Recommendation For Bug Resolution

On Reliability of Patch Correctness Assessment.

Estimate the Precision of Defects Based on Reports Duplication in Crowdsourced Testing

A Comparative Study of Supervised Learning Algorithms for Re-opened Bug Prediction.

Predicting the precise number of software defects: Are we there yet?

An empirical study of data sampling techniques for just-in-time software defect prediction

Tailoring Capture-Recapture Methods to Estimate Registry-Based Case Counts Based on Error-Prone Diagnostic Signals

A capture-recapture modeling framework emphasizing expert opinion in disease surveillance

Estimating Omissions from Searches

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

iSENSE2.0

On the Impact of Lower Recall and Precision in Defect Prediction for Guiding Search-Based Software Testing

PRECISION AND BIAS OF METHODS FOR ESTIMATING POINT SURVEY DETECTION PROBABILITIES

Two-step semiparametric empirical likelihood inference from capture–recapture data with missing covariates