Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35342571›Full record

ReviewEcology and evolution2022

Errors in aerial survey count data: Identifying pitfalls and solutions.

Kayla L Davis, Emily D Silverman, Allison L Sussman, R Randy Wilson, Elise F Zipkin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ecology and evolution, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kayla L DavisDepartment of Integrative Biology Michigan State University East Lansing Michigan USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9360-828X
Emily D SilvermanMigratory Bird Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Laurel Maryland USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4943-1314
Allison L SussmanU.S. Geological Survey Eastern Ecological Science Center at the Patuxent Research Refuge Laurel Maryland USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6996-9982
R Randy WilsonMigratory Bird Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jackson Mississippi USA.
Elise F ZipkinDepartment of Integrative Biology Michigan State University East Lansing Michigan USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4155-6139

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate estimates of animal abundance are essential for guiding effective management, and poor survey data can produce misleading inferences. Aerial surveys are an efficient survey platform, capable of collecting wildlife data across large spatial extents in short timeframes. However, these surveys can yield unreliable data if not carefully executed. Despite a long history of aerial survey use in ecological research, problems common to aerial surveys have not yet been adequately resolved. Through an extensive review of the aerial survey literature over the last 50 years, we evaluated how common problems encountered in the data (including nondetection, counting error, and species misidentification) can manifest, the potential difficulties conferred, and the history of how these challenges have been addressed. Additionally, we used a double-observer case study focused on waterbird data collected via aerial surveys and an online group (flock) counting quiz to explore the potential extent of each challenge and possible resolutions. We found that nearly three quarters of the aerial survey methodology literature focused on accounting for nondetection errors, while issues of counting error and misidentification were less commonly addressed. Through our case study, we demonstrated how these challenges can prove problematic by detailing the extent and magnitude of potential errors. Using our online quiz, we showed that aerial observers typically undercount group size and that the magnitude of counting errors increases with group size. Our results illustrate how each issue can act to bias inferences, highlighting the importance of considering individual methods for mitigating potential problems separately during survey design and analysis. We synthesized the information gained from our analyses to evaluate strategies for overcoming the challenges of using aerial survey data to estimate wildlife abundance, such as digital data collection methods, pooling species records by family, and ordinal modeling using binned data. Recognizing conditions that can lead to data collection errors and having reasonable solutions for addressing errors can allow researchers to allocate resources effectively to mitigate the most significant challenges for obtaining reliable aerial survey data.

Indexed as

abundanceaerial surveycount datacounting errorimperfect detectionnondetectionspecies misidentificationstudy design

Identifiers

PMID35342571
PMCPMC8931709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.