The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Building models for conservation and wildlife management
Abstract
The models commonly used in the physical sciences are based on established principles. The theory is so well accepted that little attention is paid to the art of formulating models. In this book, the authors set the stage with problems that are often poorly defined, where the processes and mechanisms are not well understood, and where data are often scant and perhaps difficult to obtain. The challenge is to develop a structure for a model under these circumstances.
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
Cited by
Bayesian belief networks: applications in ecology and natural resource management
McCann, R. K., Marcot, B. G., & Ellis, R. (2006) · Canadian Journal of Forest Research · doi:10.1139/x06-238 · Cited by 381
Scenario analysis in environmental impact assessment: Improving explorations of the future
Duinker, P. N., & Greig, L. A. (2007) · Environmental Impact Assessment Review · doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2006.11.001 · Cited by 331
Teague, R., Provenza, F., Kreuter, U., Steffens, T., & Barnes, M. (2013) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.064 · Cited by 319
Optimal Foraging and Risk of Predation: Effects on Behavior and Social Structure in Ungulates
Kie, J. G. (1999) · Journal of Mammalogy · doi:10.2307/1383163 · Cited by 274
Grazing management that regenerates ecosystem function and grazingland livelihoods
Teague, R., & Barnes, M. (2017) · African Journal of Range & Forage Science · doi:10.2989/10220119.2017.1334706 · Cited by 171
Metadata
- Venue
- Biological Conservation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1987
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 163-164
- ISSN
- 0006-3207 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2301774880
- Cited by
- 277
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.32
- 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: Building models for conservation and wildlife management. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0006-3207(87)90066-8
- The paper
- Building models for conservation and wildlife management. (1987). Biological Conservation. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(87)90066-8
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.
