Abstract:Assessments of the status and trends of abiotic and biotic indicators are two central objectives in many ecological studies and monitoring programs. Given the impracticality of making measurements or observations at every point in geographic space, even within a limited domain, consideration of spatial sampling is crucial to ensure the reliability of statistical inference regarding such status or temporal trends. The sampling units in geographic space (e.g., sites, plots, quadrats) for field observations are often selected with a preference for those expected to be species-rich or those with the highest abundances or occupancy probabilities. This sampling approach, called preferential sampling , can be based on probability sampling theory, but in practice, it is usually a form of nonprobability sampling. Introducing a selection force that disproportionately includes units in the sample based on the expected values of the variables of interest can lead to (severely) biased inferences. This is because inclusion probabilities — referred to here as propensities for units to be part of the sample — cannot be accounted for in statistical estimators when they are unknown to the sampler. In this article, we model sampling processes (considered without replacement) for a finite spatial population of sampling units using probability sampling designs. We consider four designs: Bernoulli sampling, Poisson sampling, simple random sampling, and conditional Poisson sampling. We document the bias introduced by preferential sampling in the estimation of a mean, whether for a status assessment (e.g., mean species richness) or a trend assessment (e.g., trend in mean abundance). For this purpose, we use Monte Carlo simulations and an analytical expression for the bias of the sample mean. This analytical expression shows that the bias of the sample mean (1) increases with increasing covariance between the propensities and the values of the variable of interest and (2) decreases with increasing sampling effort (sampling fraction or expected sampling fraction). This fundamental statistical result is neither widely known nor appreciated by most ecologists, even though it has the potential to ruin status or trend assessments and to lead to erroneous conclusions. The findings on preferential sampling in ecology presented in this article are reviewed from a methodological perspective, mainly for an audience of quantitative ecologists, wildlife statisticians, and biometricians involved in the design or implementation of ecological studies and monitoring programs. To facilitate future exchange among researchers on this topic by clarifying the concepts, in the discussion we also examine the terminology found in the literature for the notions related to preferential sampling.

Pitfalls arising from site selection bias in population monitoring defy simple heuristics

A comparison of monitoring designs to assess wildlife community parameters across spatial scales

On the impact of preferential sampling on ecological status and trend assessment

Invisible Hand of Sampling for Management: Underlying Needs to Survey a Threatened Seabird Can Bias Aggregated Data

Absent or undetected? Effects of non-detection of species occurrence on wildlife–habitat models

Sampling Biases Shape Our View of the Natural World

Monitoring dynamic spatio-temporal ecological processes optimally

Reducing estimation bias in adaptively changing monitoring networks with preferential site selection

Designing monitoring protocols to measure population trends of threatened insects: A case study of the cryptic, flightless grasshopper Brachaspis robustus

Avoiding bias in estimates of population size for translocation management

A Habitat Selection Multiverse Reveals Largely Consistent Results Despite a Multitude of Analysis Options

Stopping Rule Sampling to Monitor and Protect Endangered Species

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

Modeling Systematic Change in Stopover Duration Does Not Improve Bias in Trends Estimated from Migration Counts

PRECISION AND BIAS OF METHODS FOR ESTIMATING POINT SURVEY DETECTION PROBABILITIES

Method of predicting reference condition biota affects the performance and interpretation of ecological indices

Evaluating presence-absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence

Simulating Biological Impairment to Evaluate the Accuracy of Ecological Indicators

A misleading tail: A long-term study of reptile responses to multiple disturbances undermined by a change in surveying techniques

Sensitivity analysis to reduce sampling effort of a long-term monitoring program

Can overlooking ‘invisible landscapes’ bias habitat selection estimation and population distribution projections?