Closed-population c vs. CJS p

questions concerning analysis/theory using program MARK

Re: Closed-population c vs. CJS p

Postby stshroye » Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:05 am

Thank you! That's the kind of explanation I was looking for. I now realize that p from the CJS model with phi constrained to 1 does not even equal c from closed model Mt, let alone Mb or Mtb.
stshroye
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:26 pm

Re: Closed-population c vs. CJS p

Postby ehileman » Thu Jun 30, 2022 2:53 pm

stshroye wrote:Thank you! That's the kind of explanation I was looking for. I now realize that p from the CJS model with phi constrained to 1 does not even equal c from closed model Mt, let alone Mb or Mtb.


If you use Huggins closed capture model, which, like CJS also uses conditional likelihood, and assuming you have adequate data to model the extra parameter in the Huggins models, the 'p' in the CJS models phi (fixed to 1), p(.) and phi (fixed to 1) p(t) should be equivalent to the 'c' in Huggins models Mb and Mbt.
ehileman
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 6:40 pm
Location: West Virginia University

Re: Closed-population c vs. CJS p

Postby cooch » Thu Jun 30, 2022 3:33 pm

Correct...I had meant to add a comment about Huggins conditional likelihood.

But (quick reminder) that doesn't mean you can twist Huggins to be equivalent to a closed abundance model.
cooch
 
Posts: 1628
Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 4:11 pm
Location: Cornell University

Previous

Return to analysis help

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests