ArticleEcology and evolution2023
Pooling robustness in distance sampling: Avoiding bias when there is unmodelled heterogeneity.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pooling robustness in distance sampling: Avoiding bias when there is unmodelled heterogeneity.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
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
The pooling robustness property of distance sampling results in unbiased abundance estimation even when sources of variation in detection probability are not modeled. However, this property cannot be relied upon to produce unbiased subpopulation abundance estimates when using a single pooled detection function that ignores subpopulations. We investigate by simulation the effect of differences in subpopulation detectability upon bias in subpopulation abundance estimates. We contrast subpopulation abundance estimates using a pooled detection function with estimates derived using a detection function model employing a subpopulation covariate. Using point transect survey data from a multispecies songbird study, species-specific abundance estimates are compared using pooled detection functions with and without a small number of adjustment terms, and a detection function with species as a covariate. With simulation, we demonstrate the bias of subpopulation abundance estimates when a pooled detection function is employed. The magnitude of the bias is positively related to the magnitude of disparity between the subpopulation detection functions. However, the abundance estimate for the entire population remains unbiased except when there is extreme heterogeneity in detection functions. Inclusion of a detection function model with a subpopulation covariate essentially removes the bias of the subpopulation abundance estimates. The analysis of the songbird point count surveys shows some bias in species-specific abundance estimates when a pooled detection function is used. Pooling robustness is a unique property of distance sampling, producing unbiased abundance estimates at the level of the study area even in the presence of large differences in detectability between subpopulations. In situations where subpopulation abundance estimates are required for data-poor subpopulations and where the subpopulations can be identified, we recommend the use of subpopulation as a covariate to reduce bias induced in subpopulation abundance estimates.
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.