1

1 Population Estimation of Rice Grains via Mark-recapture Method

2 Abergas,Allan Neil S., Mosquito,Raphael Willard M., Ramos,Ann Kyrstin R., Tendenilla,Sophia

3 Lorraine S.

1
4 Department of Biological Sciences, College of Science, University of Santo

5 Tomas, Manila

8ABSTRACT

9 Population estimates keep track of components that affect population change which

10include birth, death, immigration and emigration. Mark-recapture is one of the most common

11methods to estimate the size of the population. This is done by capturing a particular number of

12individuals from a population, marking them, releasing them back into the population, and

13recapturing them to obtain a relatively good population estimate. The study aimed to identify the

14appropriate sampling size that would produce a good population estimate. The researchers

15utilized a shot glass full of grains and marked a number of them, corresponding to their

16assigned colors (Green, Yellow, Red, Blue) and used a tablespoon for sampling efforts. The

17researchers used nested ANOVA to test if the number of tablespoons per sampling method

18affected the estimated population count of each color. Results showed that yellow and blue

19grains were the appropriate sampling size that estimated the true population.

20

21

22

23Keywords: Mark-recapture, immigration, emigration

24

25

26
 2
3
4
5
6 1
27INTRODUCTION

28 Population consists of all individuals of the same species that live and interbreed in a

29particular area (Tuff & Tuff 2012). Two important measures of a population are the population

30density, define the number of individuals per area and population size, refers to the number of

31individuals. Population size is usually the variable of interest in terms of long-term population

32monitoring program; however, it is difficult to accurately measure many animal species and

33even plants (Manning & Goldberg 2010). In order to provide an estimate of the population size,

34ecologists used different methods depend on the difficulty of application. By far the most

35common method used is the Mark and Recapture Technique.

36 One way to estimate the size of a population is to capture and mark individuals from the

37population and later resemble to see what fraction of individuals carry marks. It is also an

38effective way to study the structure of population, movement patterns, survival and recruitment

39rates (Hammond 2009). Mark-recapture technique was first used for ecological study by C.G.J.

40Petersen in 1896 (Manning & Goldberg 2010). Petersen conducted this method in marine fish in

41order to study the migration and movements of individuals. Mark-recapture technique is widely

42used in ecology nowadays to estimate the abundance and survival rate. It is an important

43method for researchers interested in conservation and ecology.

44 This experiment aims to use rice grains as a model population and mark-recapture

45technique to study the size of the aforementioned model population being sampled from a

46substrate specifically sandy environment and determine the most appropriate size of the

47captured individuals and sampling effort that can give the best estimate of the total population.

48

7
8
 9
10
11
12
13 2
49

50MATERIALS AND METHODS

51Materials

52 The researchers made use of these materials, such as: uncooked rice grains, sand,

53tablespoon, 1.5-gallon plastic tub, small kitchen sieve and four different brightly colored markers

54to execute the Mark-Recapture Technique.

55Methods

56 The uncooked rice grains were approximately measured to have the same amount of

57uncooked rice grains in a 1 shot glass since no shot glass was available. From the gathered

58uncooked grains, the researchers recovered 100 rice grains by purposely sieving and were

59marked with the use of the markers in the following manner:

60 10 rice grains: color green

61 20 rice grains: color yellow

62 30 rice grains: color red

63 40 rice grains: color blue

64 The marked rice grains were mixed with the unmarked rice grains. Next, they were

65placed on a 1.5-gallon plastic tub filled with 2 cups of sand. The container with the cover on was

66shaken to randomly distribute the pre-defined sampling area. The recapturing phase was

67divided into sets: 1 Tablespoon, 2 Tablespoons and 3 Tablespoons. A tablespoon is equivalent

68to 1 sampling effort. For the set of 1 Tablespoon, 1 tablespoon was gathered from the container

69and sieved to obtain the individual grains. The obtained grains, such as the marked and

70unmarked were counted. After recording, the sieved grains were returned back into the

71container and was shaken. These steps were repeated until 10 replicates were obtained. Same

14
15
16
17
18
19
20 3
72process for the set of 2 Tablespoons and 3 Tablespoons.

73 A table was used to represent the data, Recaptured (R) represented the total color while

74Captured (C) represented the total: the sum of the no. of unmarked and total colored. This was

75computed for 1 Tablespoon, 2 Tablespoons and 3 Tablespoons. The estimated total number of

76the population (N) was calculated for each set of tablespoons and per color of each set of

77tablespoons through the use of this equation:

78 N= MC/R

79All of the rice grains were sieved from the sand and its total population was counted which

80represents the true population value. In order to determine how accurate, the estimate of the

81population is, the researchers computed for the percent error through the use of this equation:

82 Percent Error= ((Estimated no.of animals-Actual no.of animals))/(Actual no.of animals) x

83 100

84RESULTS

85Table 1a-c. Results acquired from the experiment from One tablespoon to Three Tablespoon

86sampling

Sample (One Green Yellow Red Blue No Color Total Total

Tablespoon) Colored

1 3 1 0 3 64 7 71

2 1 0 3 0 64 4 68

3 0 1 0 0 35 1 36

4 0 1 5 4 95 10 105

5 2 3 1 2 49 8 57

6 3 5 2 5 84 15 99

7 1 0 1 4 75 6 87

8 0 1 1 4 79 6 85

21
22
23
24
25
26
27 4
9 1 1 1 3 41 6 47

10 0 0 0 2 77 2 79
87

Sample (Two Green Yellow Red Blue No Color Total Total

Tablespoons) Colored

1 2 3 4 2 112 11 123

2 1 2 2 5 101 10 111

3 1 2 1 1 135 5 140

6rtrt4 2 1 3 3 130 9 139

5 0 0 4 3 118 7 125

6 3 1 3 4 83 11 94

7 1 3 6 6 163 16 175

8 1 4 2 7 119 14 133

9 1 1 3 3 92 8 150

10 1 1 5 3 115 10 125
88

Sample (Three Green Yellow Red Blue No Color Total Total

Tablespoons) Colored

1 1 2 4 2 165 9 174

2 2 1 7 8 231 18 249

3 1 3 2 4 187 10 197

4 3 4 4 6 165 17 182

5 5 7 7 5 198 24 222

6 1 1 9 8 168 19 187

7 3 3 5 5 192 16 208

8 5 3 7 10 208 25 233

28
29
30
31
32
33
34 5
9 1 1 2 4 108 8 116

10 2 2 6 7 167 17 184
89

90 The data found in Table 1a-c were acquired through the different trials done during the

91experiment. Using the values it was used to calculate for the values in Table 2. It was also

92shown in Table 2. that when comparing the % error it was concluded by the researchers that

93the Blue and Yellow colors have the most suitable population for estimated population count.

94

95Table 2. Average estimated population and % error obtained through the different sampling

96methods

Trial Average Estimated % Error

Population

Total One Tablespoon 1623.7 -23.05%

Red One Tablespoon 901.3 12.06232%

Blue One Tablespoon 781.79 6.107182%

Yellow One Tablespoon 765.5 14.95%

Green One Tablespoon 324.77 10.19897%

Total Two Tablespoon 1378.16 -34.68%

Red Two Tablespoon 1469.5 20.2971%

Blue Two Tablespoon 1716.13 14.60118%

Yellow Two Tablespoon 1474.83 29.72563%

Green Two Tablespoon 950.33 31.77%

Total Three Tablespoon 1303.06 -38.24%

Red Three Tablespoon 1562.67 18.40246%

Blue Three Tablespoon 1338.77 13.20609%

35
36
 37
38
39
40
41 6
Yellow Three Tablespoon 1775.1 35.98125%

Green Three Tablespoon 1121.5 37.67241%

97

98 Using the NESTED ANOVA It as tested whether or not the amount of tablespoons per

99sampling method affected the estimated population count of each color. This was done in

100accordance with the Null Hypothesis: The number of tablespoons per sampling method do not

101affect the estimated population per color. Using the P Values in Table 3. it was concluded that

102the Red, Blue and Yellow all have P-Values over .05 meaning the null hypothesis was failed to

103be rejected and that the tablespoons do not affect the estimated population per color for the

104colors Blue, Yellow and Red.

105

106Table 3. Table showing the P-Values acquired from the NESTED ANOVA statistical test.

Category P-Value (Pr(<F))

Red estimated population between three 0.371

sampling methods

Blue estimated population between three 0.107

sampling methods

Yellow estimated population between three 0.0519

sampling methods

Green estimated population between three 0.00411

sampling methods
107

108DISCUSSION

109 There are certain and obvious disadvantages to incorporating a small sample size in the

110estimation of true populations. According to Zamboni (2018), a small sample size is prone to

111producing unreliable results while a large sample size may consume a great amount of time,

42
43
 44
45
46
47
48 7
112resources and research effort. The principle behind this is that the small sample size calls for

113the outliers to skew the data gathered. Furthermore, Simmons (2018) said that a decrease in

114the sample size calls for a larger standard deviation among the data which would ultimately

115make the results less accurate. On the other hand, increasing the sampling effort affects the

116overall accuracy and precision of the population estimates according to Kowalewski (2014).

117This also reduces the chance of getting zeros in catch data which complicates statistical

118analysis.

119 However, according to Mazerolle et.al (2017), one of the main disadvantages of

120estimating true population is that it requires greater sampling effort and more resources prior to

121uncorrected counts. Another disadvantage is the repeated handling/capturing of the animal

122which can stress them out during the activity in exchange for a higher accuracy and precision in

123estimating the true population.

124 A study by Alonso et. al. (2015) used the traditional mark-recapture method, it produced

125insufficient sample sizes to achieve desirable levels of precision. It indicates that low sample

126sizes results in a decrease in precision. However, if the sample size increases then the

127estimated population also increases. When the estimated population increases then the percent

128error decreases, which shows that higher sample sizes are more favored than low sample sizes

129in using the Mark-Recapture Technique since it yields higher precision (Gerong et. al.).

130 When marking an organism, it should have no effect on their survival. This is difficult to

131avoid since marked organisms tend to die earlier than unmarked organism due to certain

132encounters that can make the organism be noticed by predators or it can hinder them. Since

133rice grains is the model population for this study, broken grains were part of the counting for the

134estimate and total population. It may represent a birth or death of an organism but since the

49
50
 51
52
53
54
55 8
135researchers represented it to be a part of the population, it could entail that a proportionate

136number must be removed from the estimated and total population. In birth, organisms will not be

137born with marks on them. They are only part of the counting unless if an equal number of

138unmarked organisms die or are born. This is highly unlikely to happen because this means that

139no marked organisms can leave (Radford).

140 If migration occurred then the closed population- where during the interval between the

141marking period and the recapture period, nothing has happened to disrupt the proportions of

142marked to unmarked animals (immigration and emigration)- will be violated since the length of

143the sampling period is very important. The longer the time interval, the greater the chance that

144birth, death, immigration and emigration may occur in some organisms, thus becomes an open

145population. It is more complicated than close population because extra parameters are needed

146to model recruitment, mortality and movements. While it is possible to use open population to

147estimate abundance, the resulting estimates tend to be less precise and robust to variations in

148capture probability than those generated by closed-population models (Kendall 2001). It would

149not be able to predict how the estimate would be biased, unlike in closed population since it is

150fixed.

151 The application of the mark-recapture method requires the assumption that the marked

152individuals must be randomly dispersed throughout the population. However, the time period

153must not take that long because the longer the interval of the sampling period, the greater the

154chance that some individuals will die, emigrate, immigrate or even be born (Pledger & Efford

1551998). If the marked individuals failed to dispersed in the sampling area, this will result to higher

156probability of marked individuals being recaptured relative to unmarked individuals or vice versa

157(Grimm et al 2014). Furthermore, since species undergo changes over time, marked individuals

158should not lose their marks as they molt, grow and respond to seasonal factors (Oosthuizen
56
57
 58
59
60
61
62 9
1592011). It is to prevent the problem of inexact identification, incorrect addition of new captures

160that will lead to biased estimates of abundance.

161

162CONCLUSION

163 To figure out which sampling size is best for computing for the estimate population the

164researchers gathered data based on the mark recapture method in rice grains and with made

165use of the Nested ANOVA statistical test. From the statistical test it was concluded that for the

166colors Red Blue and Yellow the number of tablespoons did not affect its estimate population.

167Using that conclusion, the researchers used the percent error calculation to find out which

168among the three sampling populations were ideal. Based on the percent error calculation it was

169concluded that the Blue and Yellow populations were most ideal sampling size due to their

170lower and more constant percent error.

171REFERENCES

172Journal Articles

173GRIMM A, GRUBER B, HENLE K. 2014. Reliability of Different Mark-Recapture Methods for

174 Population Size Estimation Tested against Reference Population Sizes Constructed

175 from Field Data. PLOS ONE 9(6): e98840.

176HAMMOND P. 2009. Mark-recapture. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. 705-709.

177 10.1016/B978-0-12-373553-9.00163-2.

178MANNING J, GOLDBERG C. 2010. Estimating population size using capture–recapture

179 encounter histories created from point‐coordinate locations of animals. Methods in

180 Ecology and Evolution. 1. 389 - 397. 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00041.x.

63
64
 65
66
67
68
69 10
181OOSTHUIZEN W. CHRIS & DE BRUYN, NICO & BESTER, MARTHÁN. 2011. Unmarked

182 individuals in mark-recapture studies: Comparisons of marked and unmarked southern

183 elephant seals at Marion Island. Austral Ecology. 37. 556-568. 10.1111/j.1442-

184 9993.2011.02316.x.

185TUFF K, TUFF TY. 2012. Introduction to population demographics. Nature Education

186 Knowledge. 3. 3.

187Electronic References

188KOWALEWSKI L.K. 2014. Accuracy or Precision: Implications of Sample Design and

189 Methodology on Abundance Estimation. Retrieved from

190 https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1089&context=natresdiss on

191 18 November 2019

192LETTINK M. 2012. Herpetofauna:population estimates (using capture-mark-recapture data).

193 Retrieved from https://www.doc.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/science-and-

194 technical/inventory-monitoring/im-toolbox-herpetofauna-population-estimates.pdf on 18

195 November 2019

196SIMMONS A.E. 2018. The Disadvantages of a Small Sample Size. Retrieved from

197 https://sciencing.com/disadvantages-small-sample-size-8448532.html on 18 November

198 2019

199ZAMBONI J. 2018. What Is the Meaning of Sample Size?. Retrieved from

200 https://sciencing.com/meaning-sample-size-5988804.html on 18 November 2019

201

70
71