ArticleEcology and evolution2020
Robustness of close-kin mark-recapture estimators to dispersal limitation and spatially varying sampling probabilities.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of close-kin mark-recapture to an American black bear population using harvest samples.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026Article
- Combining individual and close-kin mark-recapture to design an effective wildlife population survey.Ecology · 2026Article
- Spatial close-kin mark-recapture methods to estimate dispersal parameters and barrier strength for mosquitoes.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Temporal Variability in Effective Size (Molecular ecology resources · 2025Article
- Estimating Demographic Parameters for Bearded Seals,Evolutionary applications · 2024Article
- Estimation of spatial demographic maps from polymorphism data using a neural network.Molecular ecology resources · 2024Article
- Assessing the suitability of a one-time sampling event for close-kin mark-recapture: A caribou case study.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Age is not just a number: How incorrect ageing impacts close-kin mark-recapture estimates of population size.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Accounting for unobserved population dynamics and aging error in close-kin mark-recapture assessments.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Close-kin mark-recapture informs critically endangered terrestrial mammal status.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Implications of past and present genetic connectivity for management of the saltwater crocodile (Evolutionary applications · 2023Article
- Evaluating the suitability of close-kin mark-recapture as a demographic modelling tool for a critically endangered elasmobranch population.Evolutionary applications · 2023Article
- Article
- Close-kin mark-recapture methods to estimate demographic parameters of mosquitoes.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Considering sampling bias in close-kin mark-recapture abundance estimates of Atlantic salmon.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- Population abundance in arctic grayling using genetics and close-kin mark-recapture.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- Robustness of close-kin mark-recapture estimators to dispersal limitation and spatially varying sampling probabilities.Ecology and evolution · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Close-kin mark-recapture (CKMR) is a method for estimating abundance and vital rates from kinship relationships observed in genetic samples. CKMR inference only requires animals to be sampled once (e.g., lethally), potentially widening the scope of population-level inference relative to traditional monitoring programs.One assumption of CKMR is that, conditional on individual covariates like age, all animals have an equal probability of being sampled. However, if genetic data are collected opportunistically (e.g., via hunters or fishers), there is potential for spatial variation in sampling probability that can bias CKMR estimators, particularly when genetically related individuals stay in close proximity.We used individual-based simulation to investigate consequences of dispersal limitation and spatially biased sampling on performance of naive (nonspatial) CKMR estimators of abundance, fecundity, and adult survival. Population dynamics approximated that of a long-lived mammal species subject to lethal sampling.Naive CKMR abundance estimators were relatively unbiased when dispersal was unconstrained (i.e., complete mixing) or when sampling was random or subject to moderate levels of spatial variation. When dispersal was limited, extreme variation in spatial sampling probabilities negatively biased abundance estimates. Reproductive schedules and survival were well estimated, except for survival when adults could emigrate out of the sampled area. Incomplete mixing was readily detected using Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests.Although CKMR appears promising for estimating abundance and vital rates with opportunistically collected genetic data, care is needed when dispersal limitation is coupled with spatially biased sampling. Fortunately, incomplete mixing is easily detected with adequate sample sizes. In principle, it is possible to devise and fit spatially explicit CKMR models to avoid bias under dispersal limitation, but development of such models necessitates additional complexity (and possibly additional data). We suggest using simulation studies to examine potential bias and precision of proposed modeling approaches prior to implementing a CKMR program.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.