The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Designing occupancy studies: general advice and allocating survey effort
Open accessAbstract
Summary: The fraction of sampling units in a landscape where a target species is present (occupancy) is an extensively used concept in ecology. Yet in many applications the species will not always be detected in a sampling unit even when present, resulting in biased estimates of occupancy. Given that sampling units are surveyed repeatedly within a relatively short timeframe, a number of similar methods have now been developed to provide unbiased occupancy estimates. However, practical guidance on the efficient design of occupancy studies has been lacking. In this paper we comment on a number of general issues related to designing occupancy studies, including the need for clear objectives that are explicitly linked to science or management, selection of sampling units, timing of repeat surveys and allocation of survey effort. Advice on the number of repeat surveys per sampling unit is considered in terms of the variance of the occupancy estimator, for three possible study designs. We recommend that sampling units should be surveyed a minimum of three times when detection probability is high (> 0·5 survey−1), unless a removal design is used. We found that an optimal removal design will generally be the most efficient, but we suggest it may be less robust to assumption violations than a standard design. Our results suggest that for a rare species it is more efficient to survey more sampling units less intensively, while for a common species fewer sampling units should be surveyed more intensively. Synthesis and applications. Reliable inferences can only result from quality data. To make the best use of logistical resources, study objectives must be clearly defined; sampling units must be selected, and repeated surveys timed appropriately; and a sufficient number of repeated surveys must be conducted. Failure to do so may compromise the integrity of the study. The guidance given here on study design issues is particularly applicable to studies of species occurrence and distribution, habitat selection and modelling, metapopulation studies and monitoring programmes.
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
Cites
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-citation
Cited by
A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists
Elith, J., Phillips, S. J., Hastie, T., Dudík, M., Chee, Y. E., & Yates, C. J. (2011) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00725.x · Cited by 6,699
Selecting pseudo‐absences for species distribution models: how, where and how many?
Barbet‐Massin, M., Jiguet, F., Albert, C. H., & Thuiller, W. (2012) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2011.00172.x · Cited by 2,716
The uncertain nature of absences and their importance in species distribution modelling
Lobo, J. M., Jiménez‐Valverde, A., & Hortal, J. (2010) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.06039.x · Cited by 656
Swanson, A., Kosmala, M., Lintott, C., Simpson, R., Smith, A., & Packer, C. (2015) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2015.26 · Cited by 510
Guillera‐Arroita, G. (2017) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.02445 · Cited by 426
Metadata
- Authors
- MACKENZIE, D. I., & ROYLE, J. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-11-23
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1105-1114
- ISSN
- 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2664
- OpenAlex
- W1575393310
- Cited by
- 1,405
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 20.82
- 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: Designing occupancy studies: general advice and allocating survey effort. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01098.x
- The paper
- MACKENZIE, D. I., & ROYLE, J. A. (2005). Designing occupancy studies: general advice and allocating survey effort. Journal of Applied Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01098.x
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.