Table 3 Comparison of the structure of the capture histories (CH) derived from classification of snow leopard images by eight observers (Obs 1–4 were non-experts, Obs 5–8 were experts) with the true capture history (TRUE).

From: Identification errors in camera-trap studies result in systematic population overestimation

 

CH structure

Population estimate

Bias in population estimate

5

4

3

2

1

True

Remaining

TRUE

1

2

5

4

4

16.6 ± 0.9

+3.7%

+3.7%

Obs1

0

2

3

6

7

20.3 ± 2.0

+27%

+35%

Obs 2

1

1

1

4

8

23.9 ± 7.2

+49%

+84%

Obs 3

1

2

3

6

6

21.0 ± 2.8

+31%

+31%

Obs 4

0

2

2

9

7

22.8 ± 2.3

+42%

+42%

Obs 5

1

1

3

5

8

23.5 ± 4.5

+47%

+56%

Obs 6

0

3

2

6

9

22.8 ± 2.3

+42%

+42%

Obs 7

2

0

5

5

3

16.1 ± 1.3

+0.6%

+7%

Obs 8

3

0

2

5

8

23.2 ± 3.9

+45%

+45%

  1. The CHs were based on 5 sampling occasions; CH structure shows how many times each snow leopard individual was seen (where the ‘5’ column indicates an individual was recorded in 5 capture events, and the ‘1’ column indicates an individual was only identified by the observer once). Based on each observer’s CH a population abundance estimate was derived using a closed capture-recapture model (mean ± SD; see methods). The bias in the mean estimate for the population is shown relative to the true population size (n = 16) and also relative to the number of unique individuals remaining in each observers’ CH after accounting for animals removed from consideration because of capture event exclusion (for observers 1, 2, 5 & 7 the number of unique individuals assessed was n = 15, 13, 15 & 15 respectively; see Table 1).