The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Double-Observer Approach for Estimating Detection Probability and Abundance From Point Counts
Abstract
Although point counts are frequently used in ornithological studies, basic assumptions about detection probabilities often are untested. We apply a double-observer approach developed to estimate detection probabilities for aerial surveys (Cook and Jacobson 1979) to avian point counts. At each point count, a designated “primary” observer indicates to another (“secondary”) observer all birds detected. The secondary observer records all detections of the primary observer as well as any birds not detected by the primary observer. Observers alternate primary and secondary roles during the course of the survey. The approach permits estimation of observer-specific detection probabilities and bird abundance. We developed a set of models that incorporate different assumptions about sources of variation (e.g. observer, bird species) in detection probability. Seventeen field trials were conducted, and models were fit to the resulting data using program SURVIV. Single-observer point counts generally miss varying proportions of the birds actually present, and observer and bird species were found to be relevant sources of variation in detection probabilities. Overall detection probabilities (probability of being detected by at least one of the two observers) estimated using the double-observer approach were very high (>0.95), yielding precise estimates of avian abundance. We consider problems with the approach and recommend possible solutions, including restriction of the approach to fixed-radius counts to reduce the effect of variation in the effective radius of detection among various observers and to provide a basis for using spatial sampling to estimate bird abundance on large areas of interest. We believe that most questions meriting the effort required to carry out point counts also merit serious attempts to estimate detection probabilities associated with the counts. The double-observer approach is a method that can be used for this purpose.
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
ESTIMATING ABUNDANCE FROM REPEATED PRESENCE–ABSENCE DATA OR POINT COUNTS
Royle, J. A., & Nichols, J. D. (2003) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084[0777:eafrpa]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,364
Self-citationAbsent or undetected? Effects of non-detection of species occurrence on wildlife–habitat models
Gu, W., & Swihart, R. K. (2004) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/s0006-3207(03)00190-3 · Cited by 788
Models for Estimating Abundance from Repeated Counts of an Open Metapopulation
Dail, D., & Madsen, L. (2011) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2010.01465.x · Cited by 382
Eikelboom, J. A. J., Wind, J., van de Ven, E., Kenana, L. M., Schroder, B., de Knegt, H. J., van Langevelde, F., & Prins, H. H. T. (2019) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13277 · Cited by 135
Conservation of birds in fragmented landscapes requires protected areas
Timmers, R., van Kuijk, M., Verweij, P. A., Ghazoul, J., Hautier, Y., Laurance, W. F., Arriaga‐Weiss, S. L., Askins, R. A., Battisti, C., Berg, Å., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1002/fee.2485 · Cited by 79
Metadata
- Authors
- Nichols, J. D., Hines, J. E., Sauer, J. R., Fallon, F. W., Fallon, J. E., & Heglund, P. J.
- Venue
- The Auk
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-04-01
- Volume
- 117
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 393-408
- ISSN
- 0004-8038 (ISSN-L)
- 1938-4254
- OpenAlex
- W4252237635
- Cited by
- 271
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.50
- 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: A Double-Observer Approach for Estimating Detection Probability and Abundance From Point Counts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/auk/117.2.393
- The paper
- Nichols, J. D., Hines, J. E., Sauer, J. R., Fallon, F. W., Fallon, J. E., & Heglund, P. J. (2000). A Double-Observer Approach for Estimating Detection Probability and Abundance From Point Counts. The Auk. https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/117.2.393
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.