Table 3 Method comparison showing the mean difference between methods, Lin’s Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC), and Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The abundance estimates between the Chapman and distance sampling methods is compared; as well as the abundance estimates, marked proportion seen, and number of dogs counted per survey for the comparison of all roads to the subset
From: A comparison of population estimation techniques for individually unidentifiable free-roaming dogs
Comparison | Mean difference | Lin’s CCC | Pearson’s R | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chapman vs distance-method | −20.76 | (−58.53, 17.01) | 0.17 | (0.01, 0.31) | 0.21 | (0.01, 0.38) |
All roads vs subset | ||||||
 Chapman estimate | 0.45 | (−56.96, 57.85) | 0.41 | (0.17, 0.61) | 0.43 | (0.17, 0.63) |
 Distance-method estimate | −32.37 | (−61.83, −2.91) | 0.37 | (0.15, 0.55) | 0.43 | (0.18, 0.63) |
 Marked proportion | 0.03 | (−0.06, 0.13) | −0.12 | (− 0.37, 0.16) | −0.12 | (− 0.38, 0.16) |
 Number of dogs | 8.98 | (6.84, 11.12) | 0.33 | (0.18, 0.46) | 0.61 | (0.40, 0.76) |