The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Monitoring for conservation
Abstract
Human-mediated environmental changes have resulted in appropriate concern for the conservation of ecological systems and have led to the development of many ecological monitoring programs worldwide. Many programs that are identified with the purpose of 'surveillance' represent an inefficient use of conservation funds and effort. Here, we revisit the 1964 paper by Platt and argue that his recommendations about the conduct of science are equally relevant to the conduct of ecological monitoring programs. In particular, we argue that monitoring should not be viewed as a stand-alone activity, but instead as a component of a larger process of either conservation-oriented science or management. Corresponding changes in monitoring focus and design would lead to substantial increases in the efficiency and usefulness of monitoring results in conservation.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Allowing the monitoring design and focus to be determined by an appropriate problem framing of the restoration effort will ensure the maximum utility of the resulting information (Nichols and Williams 2006).”
From Adaptive Management in Practice and the Problem of Application at Multiple Scales—Insights from Oyster Reef Restoration on Florida’s Gulf Coast (2022) · cites this paper as Nichols and Williams 2006
Citations
Cites
Bellman, R. E. (2010) · doi:10.1515/9781400835386 · Cited by 14,588
Markov decision processes: Discrete stochastic dynamic programming
Hazeghi, K., & Puterman, M. L. (1995) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2291177 · Cited by 8,037
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Acoustic monitoring for conservation in tropical forests: examples from forest elephants
Wrege, P. H., Rowland, E. D., Keen, S., & Shiu, Y. (2017) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12730 · Cited by 191
Making Robust Policy Decisions Using Global Biodiversity Indicators
Nicholson, E., Collen, B., Barausse, A., Blanchard, J. L., Costelloe, B. T., Sullivan, K. M. E., Underwood, F. M., Burn, R. W., Fritz, S., Jones, J. P. G., et al. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041128 · Cited by 128
The geometric mean of relative abundance indices: a biodiversity measure with a difference
Buckland, S. T., Studeny, A. C., Magurran, A. E., Illian, J. B., & Newson, S. E. (2011) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1890/es11-00186.1 · Cited by 102
Breininger, D. R., Breininger, R. D., & Hall, C. R. (2017) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.12791 · Cited by 16
Pine, W. E., Johnson, F. A., Frederick, P. C., & Coggins, L. G. (2022) · Marine and Coastal Fisheries · doi:10.1002/mcf2.10192 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- NICHOLS, J., & WILLIAMS, B.
- Venue
- Trends in Ecology & Evolution
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2006-12
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 668-673
- ISSN
- 0169-5347
- Cited by
- 1,104
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
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
