estimates in the posterior standard deviation in comparing it with the prior standard deviation.
The estimates of posterior means of 2 did not differ by much for the different home range
assumptions.
Relaxing site independence and instead assuming that the average abundance at
each site remains a constant. The posterior summary statistics for the results by ensuring
independence between sites are tabulated (Tables 3-5 and 3-6). The mean estimates of animal-
specific detection probabilities were still low (between 0.038 to 0.122). The posterior means of
in 2005 for the home range sizes of 25 km2 and 50 km2 were lower than the posterior means of 2
in 2004. However, the mean values of A were influenced by the prior distributions.
Conclusions and Discussion
From these results it is clear that the increase in the number of sites has little effect on the
variability of the parameter estimates. By increasing the home range sizes, more spatial
replicates were added to each site for analysis and there was a reduction in the number of
available sites for analysis. This trade-off is perhaps the largest cause for the less variability in
the parameter estimates. After relaxing the assumption that animals detected in one site will not
be detected in another site, and instead making the assumption that the abundance at each site at
any given point remains a constant irrespective of immigration or emigration to or from the site,
the estimate of the animal-specific detection probability is still very low. Placing more traps per
site and placing them in higher probability locations (e.g., near termite mounds or even placing
baits to attract bears) may change r to values to provide better estimates of A. As an alternative,
other data gathering tools such as sign encounter surveys in some conditions may serve as better
techniques to improve r.
The results from Tables 3-3 to 3-6 may not be indicative enough to derive abundance
estimates. However, in the year 2004, with an assumption of an 18 km2 home range size, the