CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 145Wildlife Ecology and ConservationCensus and Population EstimationRangeland and Wildlife Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How reliable are dung counts for estimating elephant numbers?

Barnes, R. F. W.·2001·African Journal of Ecology
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2028.2001.00266.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Dung counts are the most commonly used techniques for estimating elephant numbers in forests, yet there is considerable scepticism concerning their accuracy. Published accounts of dung counts show that they give estimates similar to those from other methods for vertebrates ranging in size from lizards to elephants. For ungulates, macropods and elephants there are strong correlations between estimates from dung counts and other methods. Thus, dung counts are as accurate or inaccurate as other methods for estimating vertebrate numbers, including elephants. Dung counts for elephants give estimates that are as precise as, and sometimes more precise than, those from aerial surveys of elephants. This is because the variance in dung density is usually low and results in a lower than expected variance for the final elephant estimate when combined with the variances of defecation and decay rates. Dung counts may be more appropriate than aerial surveys for monitoring small or declining elephant populations.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2028.2001.00266.x

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 48 references

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Barnes R.F.W., 1994, African Elephant Conservation Programme Final Report
  2. Cochran W.G., 1977, Sampling Techniques
  3. Dawson S.(1990)A Model to Estimate Density of Asian Elephants(Elephas maximus)in Forest Habitats.Msc Thesis University of Oxford.
  4. Douglas‐Hamilton L., 1992, African Elephant Database.
  5. Guy P.R., 1975, The daily food intake of the African elephant, Loxodonta africana Blumenbach, in Rhodesia, Arnoldia, 7, 1
  6. Hart L.A., 1994, Exploration of the Maiko National Park of Zaire 1989–92: history, environment, and the distribution status of large mammals
  7. Norton‐Griffiths M., 1978, Counting Animals
  8. Said M.Y., 1995, African Elephant Database 1995.
  9. Santosh J.A., 1995, A Week with Elephants: Proceedings of the International Seminar on the Conservation of Asian Elephant (June 1993)
  10. Sukumar R., 1991, Censusing Elephants in Forests: Proceedings of an International Workshop (
  11. Varman K.S., 1995, A Week with Elephants: Proceedings of the International Seminar on the Conservation of Asian Elephant (June 1993)
  12. Wing L.D., 1970, Elephants and forests, Wildl. Monogr., 19, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 145

Related

Metadata

Authors
Barnes, R. F. W.
Affiliations
University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Barnes, R. F. W.
ORCID
Barnes, R. F. W.
Venue
African Journal of Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-03
Volume
39
Issue
1
Pages
1-9
ISSN
  • 0141-6707 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2028
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2028.2001.00266.x
OpenAlex
W2128090400
Cited by
145
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 2696 d)
Locations
African Journal of Ecology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Census and Population Estimation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
dung counts, African bush elephant, aerial survey, stool frequency, survey accuracy, population monitoring, forest elephants

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