Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 216

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

When to stop managing or surveying cryptic threatened species

Open access
Chadès, Iadine, McDonald-Madden, Eve, McCarthy, Michael A., Wintle, Brendan, Linkie, Matthew, Possingham, Hugh P.·2008·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Threatened species become increasingly difficult to detect as their populations decline. Managers of such cryptic threatened species face several dilemmas: if they are not sure the species is present, should they continue to manage for that species or invest the limited resources in surveying? We find optimal solutions to this problem using a Partially Observable Markov Decision Process and rules of thumb derived from an analytical approximation. We discover that managing a protected area for a cryptic threatened species can be optimal even if we are not sure the species is present. The more threatened and valuable the species is, relative to the costs of management, the more likely we are to manage this species without determining its continued persistence by using surveys. If a species remains unseen, our belief in the persistence of the species declines to a point where the optimal strategy is to shift resources from saving the species to surveying for it. Finally, when surveys lead to a sufficiently low belief that the species is extant, we surrender resources to other conservation actions. We illustrate our findings with a case study using parameters based on the critically endangered Sumatran tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae), and we generate rules of thumb on how to allocate conservation effort for any cryptic species. Using Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes in conservation science, we determine the conditions under which it is better to abandon management for that species because our belief that it continues to exist is too low.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0805265105

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 216

Metadata

Authors
Chadès, I., McDonald-Madden, E., McCarthy, M. A., Wintle, B., Linkie, M., & Possingham, H. P.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2008-09-16
Volume
105
Issue
37
Pages
13936-13940
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W1989031074
Cited by
216
References
1
FWCI
9.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: When to stop managing or surveying cryptic threatened species. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0805265105
The paper
Chadès, I., McDonald-Madden, E., McCarthy, M. A., Wintle, B., Linkie, M., & Possingham, H. P. (2008). When to stop managing or surveying cryptic threatened species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805265105

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.