The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Large scale wildlife monitoring studies: statistical methods for design and analysis
Abstract
Techniques for estimation of absolute abundance of wildlife populations have received a lot of attention in recent years. The statistical research has been focused on intensive small‐scale studies. Recently, however, wildlife biologists have desired to study populations of animals at very large scales for monitoring purposes. Population indices are widely used in these extensive monitoring programs because they are inexpensive compared to estimates of absolute abundance. A crucial underlying assumption is that the population index (C) is directly proportional to the population density (D). The proportionality constant, β, is simply the probability of ‘detection’ for animals in the survey. As spatial and temporal comparisons of indices are crucial, it is necessary to also assume that the probability of detection is constant over space and time. Biologists intuitively recognize this when they design rigid protocols for the studies where the indices are collected. Unfortunately, however, in many field studies the assumption is clearly invalid. We believe that the estimation of detection probability should be built into the monitoring design through a double sampling approach. A large sample of points provides an abundance index, and a smaller sub‐sample of the same points is used to estimate detection probability. There is an important need for statistical research on the design and analysis of these complex studies. Some basic concepts based on actual avian, amphibian, and fish monitoring studies are presented in this article. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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
Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals
White, G. C., & Burnham, K. P. (1999) · Bird Study · doi:10.1080/00063659909477239 · Cited by 7,499
Lebreton, J.-D., Burnham, K. P., Clobert, J., & Anderson, D. R. (1992) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.2307/2937171 · Cited by 4,517
Model Selection and Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach
Strawderman, R. L., Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2000) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2669574 · Cited by 4,194
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (1998) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-2917-7 · Cited by 3,387
Explicit estimates from capture-recapture data with both death and immigration-stochastic model
Jolly, G. M. (1965) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/52.1-2.225 · Cited by 2,605
Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations
Otis, D. L., Burnham, K. P., White, G. C., & Anderson, D. R. (1978) · Wildlife Monographs · Cited by 2,442
Program MARK : survival estimation from populations of marked animals
Gc, W. (1999) · Bird Study · Cited by 1,973
A note on the multiple-recapture census
Seber, G. A. F. (1965) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/52.1-2.249 · Cited by 1,928
Statistical Inference for Capture-Recapture Experiments.
Lawson, A. B., Pollock, K. H., Nichols, J. D., Brownie, C., & Hines, J. E. (1992) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2532321 · Cited by 1,836
Self-citationThe Estimation of Animal Abundance and Related Parameters
Jolly, G. M., & Seber, G. A. F. (1974) · The Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.2307/3397 · Cited by 1,416
Cited by
ESTIMATING SITE OCCUPANCY RATES WHEN DETECTION PROBABILITIES ARE LESS THAN ONE
MacKenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Lachman, G. B., Droege, S., Andrew Royle, J., & Langtimm, C. A. (2002) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2248:esorwd]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 4,481
Self-citationEstimating animal density using camera traps without the need for individual recognition
Rowcliffe, J. M., Field, J., Turvey, S. T., & Carbone, C. (2008) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01473.x · Cited by 905
Camera Traps in Animal Ecology
(2011) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-4-431-99495-4 · Cited by 759
Tigers and their prey: Predicting carnivore densities from prey abundance
Karanth, K. U., Nichols, J. D., Kumar, N. S., Link, W. A., & Hines, J. E. (2004) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0306210101 · Cited by 667
Self-citationMonitoring change in biodiversity through composite indices
Buckland, S. T., Magurran, A. E., Green, R. E., & Fewster, R. M. (2005) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1589 · Cited by 403
Accounting for Imperfect Detection in Ecology: A Quantitative Review
Kellner, K. F., & Swihart, R. K. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111436 · Cited by 383
MODELING AVIAN ABUNDANCE FROM REPLICATED COUNTS USING BINOMIAL MIXTURE MODELS
Kéry, M., Royle, J. A., & Schmid, H. (2005) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/04-1120 · Cited by 358
Point-Transect Surveys for Songbirds: Robust Methodologies
Buckland, S. T. (2006) · The Auk · doi:10.1093/auk/123.2.345 · Cited by 339
Cooke, S. (2008) · Endangered Species Research · doi:10.3354/esr00063 · Cited by 332
Butterfly monitoring in Europe: methods, applications and perspectives
van Swaay, C. A. M., Nowicki, P., Settele, J., & van Strien, A. J. (2008) · Biodiversity and Conservation · doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9491-4 · Cited by 297
Evaluating methods for counting cryptic carnivores
BALME, G. A., HUNTER, L. T. B., & SLOTOW, R. (2009) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2193/2007-368 · Cited by 254
The Wildlife Picture Index: monitoring top trophic levels
O'Brien, T. G., Baillie, J. E. M., Krueger, L., & Cuke, M. (2010) · Animal Conservation · doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00357.x · Cited by 151
Vine, S. J., Crowther, M. S., Lapidge, S. J., Dickman, C. R., Mooney, N., Piggott, M. P., & English, A. W. (2009) · Wildlife Research · doi:10.1071/wr08069 · Cited by 133
Metadata
- Authors
- Pollock, K. H., Nichols, J. D., Simons, T. R., Farnsworth, G. L., Bailey, L. L., & Sauer, J. R.
- Venue
- Environmetrics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-02-27
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 105-119
- ISSN
- 1099-095X (ISSN-L)
- 1180-4009
- OpenAlex
- W1982512880
- Cited by
- 684
- References
- 33
- FWCI
- 15.84
- 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
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.
