Abstract:Non-invasive monitoring techniques like camera traps, autonomous recording units and environmental DNA are increasingly used to collect data for understanding species distribution. These methods have prompted the development of statistical models to suit with specific sampling designs and get reliable ecological inferences. Site occupancy models estimate species occurrence patterns, accounting for the possibility that the target species may be present but unobserved. Here, two key processes are crucial: detection, when a species leaves signs of its presence, and identification where these signs are accurately recognized. While both processes are prone to error in general, wrong identifications are often considered as negligible with in situ observations. When applied to passive bio-monitoring data, characterized by datasets requiring automated processing, this second source of error can no longer be ignored as misclassifications at both steps can lead to significant biases in ecological estimates. Several model extensions aim to address these potential errors. We propose an extended occupancy model that accounts for the identification process in addition to detection. Similar to other recent attempts to account for false positives, our model may suffer from identifiability issues, which usually require another source of data with perfect identification to resolve them. As an alternative when such data are unavailable, we propose leveraging existing knowledge of the identification process within a Bayesian framework by incorporating this knowledge through an informative prior. Through simulations, we compare different prior choices that encode varying levels of information, ranging from cases where no prior knowledge is available, to instances with accurate metrics on the performance of the identification, and scenarios based on generally accepted assumptions. We demonstrate that, compared to using a default prior, integrating information about the identification process as a prior reduces bias in parameter estimates. Overall, our approach mitigates identifiability issues, reduces estimation bias, and minimizes data requirements. In conclusion, we provide a statistical method applicable to various monitoring designs, such as camera trap, bioacoustics, or eDNA surveys, alongside non-invasive sampling technologies, to produce ecological outcomes that inform conservation decisions.

Correcting wildlife counts using detection probabilities

PRECISION AND BIAS OF METHODS FOR ESTIMATING POINT SURVEY DETECTION PROBABILITIES

Estimating abundance of unmarked animal populations: accounting for imperfect detection and other sources of zero inflation

Correcting for measurement errors in a long‐term aerial survey with auxiliary photographic data

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

Wildlife density estimation by distance sampling: A novel technique with movement compensation

Accounting for imperfect detection of groups and individuals when estimating abundance

The importance of accounting for imperfect detection when estimating functional and phylogenetic community structure

Estimating Omissions from Searches

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

A hierarchical model combining distance sampling and time removal to estimate detection probability during avian point counts

Correcting Classifiers for Sample Selection Bias in Two-Phase Case-Control Studies

Can we count you: validating density estimation methods for unmarked wildlife with camera traps

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

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

Supplemental structured surveys and pre-existing detection models improve fine-scale density and population estimation with opportunistic community science data

Avoiding bias in estimates of population size for translocation management

Non-detection during excursions by citizen scientists modeled as a function of weather, season, list length, and individual preferences

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

Incorporating telemetry information into capture‐recapture analyses improves precision and accuracy of abundance estimates given spatiotemporally biased recapture effort

Ecologically informed priors improve Bayesian model estimates of species richness and occupancy for undetected species