The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Selection of line‐transect methods for estimating the density of group‐living animals: lessons from the primates
Abstract
We review the four major contemporary methods for estimating density of group‐living animals from line‐transect sampling: perpendicular modelling of group centers, perpendicular modelling of center of measurable individuals, strip transects and animal–observer distance. The efficacy of each method is evaluated to produce a simple selection guide. We review the literature and use field data from the Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania. The review is relevant to all group‐living animals; however, examples are drawn from the primates. Perpendicular methods have better mathematical justification than non‐perpendicular methods. For perpendicular methods using detection function models, it is preferable to measure group location using center of measurable individuals, as group centers are hard to estimate. The assumptions of detection function models are often broken in poor visibility habitats or with unhabituated animals. Alternatively strip transects may be used where there are reliable data on group spread and/or visibility. Strip transects are also the most practical, along with the animal–observer method; however, the latter lacks mathematical justification. We conclude that there are arguments for continued use of all four methods. In certain situations the use of raw encounter rates may also be considered. The appropriate method is determined by minimizing bias and considering time, resources and field conditions. Am. J. Primatol. 70:452–462, 2008. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Monitoring mammal populations with line transect techniques in African forests
Plumptre, A. J. (2000) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2664.2000.00499.x · Cited by 338
Determinants of Variation in Tropical Forest Primate Biomass: New Evidence from West Africa
Oates, J. F., Whitesides, G. H., Davies, A. G., Waterman, P. G., Green, S. M., Dasilva, G. L., & Mole, S. (1990) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1940272 · Cited by 334
Cited by
Distance sampling with camera traps
Howe, E. J., Buckland, S. T., Després‐Einspenner, M., & Kühl, H. S. (2017) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12790 · Cited by 284
Design and Analysis of Line Transect Surveys for Primates
Buckland, S. T., Plumptre, A. J., Thomas, L., & Rexstad, E. A. (2010) · International Journal of Primatology · doi:10.1007/s10764-010-9431-5 · Cited by 277
Metadata
- Authors
- Marshall, A. R., Lovett, J. C., & White, P. C. L.
- Venue
- American Journal of Primatology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-03-27
- Volume
- 70
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 452-462
- ISSN
- 0275-2565 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2345
- OpenAlex
- W2026488525
- Cited by
- 187
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Selection of line‐transect methods for estimating the density of group‐living animals: lessons from the primates. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ajp.20516
- The paper
- Marshall, A. R., Lovett, J. C., & White, P. C. L. (2008). Selection of line‐transect methods for estimating the density of group‐living animals: lessons from the primates. American Journal of Primatology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20516
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.