Temporal aggregation of migration counts can improve accuracy and precision of trends

Temporal replicate counts are often aggregated to improve model fit by reducing zero-inflation and count variability, and in the case of migration counts collected hourly throughout a migration, allows one to ignore nonindependence. However, aggregation can represent a loss of potentially useful information on the hourly or seasonal distribution of counts, which might impact our ability to estimate reliable trends. We simulated 20-year hourly raptor migration count datasets with known rate of change to test the effect of aggregating hourly counts to daily or annual totals on our ability to recover known trend. We simulated data for three types of species, to test whether results varied with species abundance or migration strategy: a commonly detected species, e.g., Northern Harrier, Circus cyaneus; a rarely detected species, e.g., Peregrine Falcon, Falco peregrinus; and a species typically counted in large aggregations with overdispersed counts, e.g., Broad-winged Hawk, Buteo platypterus. We compared accuracy and precision of estimated trends across species and count types (hourly/daily/annual) using hierarchical models that assumed a Poisson, negative binomial (NB) or zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) count distribution. We found little benefit of modeling zero-inflation or of modeling the hourly distribution of migration counts. For the rare species, trends analyzed using daily totals and an NB or ZINB data distribution resulted in a higher probability of detecting an accurate and precise trend. In contrast, trends of the common and overdispersed species benefited from aggregation to annual totals, and for the overdispersed species in particular, trends estimating using annual totals were more precise, and resulted in lower probabilities of estimating a trend (1) in the wrong direction, or (2) with credible intervals that excluded the true trend, as compared with hourly and daily counts.

Big Decisions and Sparse Data: Adapting Scientific Publishing to the Needs of Practical Conservation

The biggest challenge in conservation biology is breaking down the gap between research and practical management. A major obstacle is the fact that many researchers are unwilling to tackle projects likely to produce sparse or messy data because the results would be difficult to publish in refereed journals. The obvious solution to sparse data is to build up results from multiple studies. Consequently, we suggest that there needs to be greater emphasis in conservation biology on publishing papers that can be built on by subsequent research rather than on papers that produce clear results individually. This building approach requires: (1) a stronger theoretical framework, in which researchers attempt to anticipate models that will be relevant in future studies and incorporate expected differences among studies into those models; (2) use of modern methods for model selection and multi-model inference, and publication of parameter estimates under a range of plausible models; (3) explicit incorporation of prior information into each case study; and (4) planning management treatments in an adaptive framework that considers treatments applied in other studies. We encourage journals to publish papers that promote this building approach rather than expecting papers to conform to traditional standards of rigor as stand-alone papers, and believe that this shift in publishing philosophy would better encourage researchers to tackle the most urgent conservation problems.