My advice was to use pooled estimates of the detection parameters, not to obtain a single estimate of density. If you are unwilling to consider this then you are stuck with Ken Pollock's answer.
Murray
Model Selection in CAPTURE
13 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
by murray.efford » Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:30 pm
- murray.efford
- Posts: 712
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:11 pm
- Location: Dunedin, New Zealand
by jaxzwolf » Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:21 pm
I'm sorry! I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that I would have to pool data over multiple study sites rather than pooling data from all the traps within a single site. I understand now. I will give DENSITY a try.
Thank you very much for your input. I really do appreciate your advice.
Thank you very much for your input. I really do appreciate your advice.
- jaxzwolf
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:18 am
by murray.efford » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:34 am
This is the paper I mentioned:
White GC 2005. Correcting wildlife counts using detection probabilities. Wildlife Research 32: 211–216.
Some of the ideas also apply when you're estimating population density.
White GC 2005. Correcting wildlife counts using detection probabilities. Wildlife Research 32: 211–216.
Some of the ideas also apply when you're estimating population density.
- murray.efford
- Posts: 712
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:11 pm
- Location: Dunedin, New Zealand
13 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests