Table
1: Summaries of the sampling distribution of estimators for
and
for T = 5 sampling occasions and R = 500 sample
locations, while varying
and r.
| Scenario | |||||||||
| r | mean | median | mean | median | constant p | ||||
| 4.61 | 0.1 | 0.37 | 0.13 | 4.87 | 4.66 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.92 |
| 4.61 | 0.2 | 0.61 | 0.17 | 4.72 | 4.64 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.96 |
| 2.30 | 0.1 | 0.23 | 0.10 | 2.39 | 2.30 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.78 |
| 2.30 | 0.2 | 0.41 | 0.16 | 2.33 | 2.31 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.83 |
| 1.61 | 0.1 | 0.19 | 0.09 | 1.67 | 1.62 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.68 |
| 1.61 | 0.2 | 0.34 | 0.14 | 1.63 | 1.62 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.73 |
| 1.20 | 0.1 | 0.16 | 0.08 | 1.26 | 1.22 | 0.70 | 0.71 | 0.70 | 0.60 |
| 1.20 | 0.2 | 0.31 | 0.12 | 1.22 | 1.21 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.64 |
| 0.92 | 0.1 | 0.15 | 0.06 | 0.96 | 0.92 | 0.60 | 0.61 | 0.60 | 0.52 |
| 0.92 | 0.2 | 0.28 | 0.11 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.55 |
| 0.69 | 0.1 | 0.13 | 0.06 | 0.73 | 0.69 | 0.50 | 0.51 | 0.50 | 0.44 |
| 0.69 | 0.2 | 0.26 | 0.10 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.46 |
| 0.51 | 0.1 | 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.54 | 0.51 | 0.40 | 0.41 | 0.40 | 0.37 |
| 0.51 | 0.2 | 0.24 | 0.08 | 0.52 | 0.51 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.38 |
Notes:
Mean and median
are given. For
we also provide the mean "constant p" estimate
obtained using the approach of MacKenzie et al. (2002)
which ignores heterogeneity in pi. Each summary is based on
2000 simulated data sets.
Table 2: Summaries of the sampling
distribution of estimators for
and
for T = 5 sampling occasions and R = 200 sample
locations, while varying
and r.
| Scenario | |||||||||
| r | mean | median | mean | median | constant p | ||||
| 4.61 | 0.1 | 0.37 | 0.13 | 5.30 | 4.64 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 0.92 |
| 4.61 | 0.2 | 0.61 | 0.17 | 4.88 | 4.66 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.96 |
| 2.30 | 0.1 | 0.23 | 0.10 | 2.62 | 2.34 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.78 |
| 2.30 | 0.2 | 0.41 | 0.16 | 2.39 | 2.33 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.83 |
| 1.61 | 0.1 | 0.19 | 0.09 | 1.82 | 1.63 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.69 |
| 1.61 | 0.2 | 0.34 | 0.14 | 1.65 | 1.61 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.73 |
| 1.20 | 0.1 | 0.16 | 0.08 | 1.40 | 1.24 | 0.70 | 0.72 | 0.71 | 0.61 |
| 1.20 | 0.2 | 0.31 | 0.12 | 1.24 | 1.21 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.64 |
| 0.92 | 0.1 | 0.15 | 0.06 | 1.06 | 0.93 | 0.60 | 0.62 | 0.61 | 0.53 |
| 0.92 | 0.2 | 0.28 | 0.11 | 0.94 | 0.92 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.55 |
| 0.69 | 0.1 | 0.13 | 0.06 | 0.80 | 0.70 | 0.50 | 0.52 | 0.50 | 0.45 |
| 0.69 | 0.2 | 0.26 | 0.10 | 0.71 | 0.70 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.46 |
| 0.51 | 0.1 | 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.64 | 0.54 | 0.40 | 0.44 | 0.42 | 0.39 |
| 0.51 | 0.2 | 0.24 | 0.08 | 0.53 | 0.52 | 0.40 | 0.41 | 0.40 | 0.38 |
Notes:
Mean and median
are given. For
we also provide the mean "constant p" estimate obtained
using the approach of MacKenzie et al. (2002) which
ignores heterogeneity in pi. Each summary is based on 2000
simulated data sets.
Table 3: Summaries of the sampling
distribution of estimators of negative binomial model parameters and the estimator
of
and
when the Poisson model is fit to the data for T = 5 sampling
occasions and R = 200 sample locations.
| Scenario | Negative Binomial | Poisson | constant p | ||||
| a | |||||||
| 0.69 | 3.45 | 0.467 | 0.740 | 0.487 | 0.622 | 0.463 | 0.433 |
| 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.380 | 0.700 | 0.382 | 0.439 | 0.356 | 0.339 |
| 0.69 | 0.23 | 0.273 | 0.669 | 0.279 | 0.285 | 0.248 | 0.238 |
| 1.61 | 8.05 | 0.770 | 1.695 | 0.782 | 1.432 | 0.761 | 0.702 |
| 1.61 | 1.61 | 0.672 | 1.650 | 0.681 | 1.024 | 0.641 | 0.602 |
| 1.61 | 0.54 | 0.526 | 1.624 | 0.528 | 0.677 | 0.492 | 0.471 |
Notes:
Summaries are medians of the sampling distribution. The "constant p"
estimator of
is that given by MacKenzie et al. (2002) which ignores
heterogeneity in pi.
MacKenzie, D. I., J. D. Nichols, G. B. Lachman, S. Droege, J. A. Royle, and C. A. Langtimm. 2002. Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83:22482255.