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.

Guidelines for estimating occupancy from autocorrelated camera trap detections

How do ecologists estimate occupancy in practice?

Using informative priors to account for identifiability issues in occupancy models with identification errors

An Empirical Evaluation of Camera Trap Study Design: How Many, How Long and When?

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

Occupancy models with autocorrelated detection heterogeneity

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

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

Incorporating Memory into Continuous-Time Spatial Capture-Recapture Models

Ghostbusting—Reducing bias due to identification errors in spatial capture‐recapture histories

Joint species distribution models with imperfect detection for high-dimensional spatial data

A simple framework for maximizing camera trap detections using experimental trials

OPTIMIZING SEGMENTATION IN OCCUPANCY MODELLING OF CAMERA-TRAP DATA

Using machine learning to identify nontraditional spatial dependence in occupancy data

Valid auto-models for spatially autocorrelated occupancy and abundance data

Occupancy-collection models: Towards bias-corrected modeling of species’ distributions using unstructured occurrence data from museums and herbaria

spOccupancy: An R package for single‐species, multi‐species, and integrated spatial occupancy models

PRECISION AND BIAS OF METHODS FOR ESTIMATING POINT SURVEY DETECTION PROBABILITIES

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

A review of factors to consider when using camera traps to study animal behavior to inform wildlife ecology and conservation

How reliably can species co-occurrence be inferred from occupancy models?