A Field Evaluation of the Time-of-Detection Method to Estimate Population Size and Density for Aural Avian Point Counts

The time-of-detection method for aural avian point counts is a new method of estimating abundance, allowing for uncertain probability of detection. The method has been specifically designed to allow for variation in singing rates of birds. It involves dividing the time interval of the point count into several subintervals and recording the detection history of the subintervals when each bird sings. The method can be viewed as generating data equivalent to closed capture–recapture information. The method is different from the distance and multiple-observer methods in that it is not required that all the birds sing during the point count. As this method is new and there is some concern as to how well individual birds can be followed, we carried out a field test of the method using simulated known populations of singing birds, using a laptop computer to send signals to audio stations distributed around a point. The system mimics actual aural avian point counts, but also allows us to know the size and spatial distribution of the populations we are sampling. Fifty 8-min point counts (broken into four 2-min intervals) using eight species of birds were simulated. Singing rate of an individual bird of a species was simulated following a Markovian process (singing bouts followed by periods of silence), which we felt was more realistic than a truly random process. The main emphasis of our paper is to compare results from species singing at (high and low) homogenous rates per interval with those singing at (high and low) heterogeneous rates. Population size was estimated accurately for the species simulated, with a high homogeneous probability of singing. Populations of simulated species with lower but homogeneous singing probabilities were somewhat underestimated. Populations of species simulated with heterogeneous singing probabilities were substantially underestimated. Underestimation was caused by both the very low detection probabilities of all distant individuals and by individuals with low singing rates also having very low detection probabilities.

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.