The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Accounting for Imperfect Detection in Ecology: A Quantitative Review
Open accessAbstract
Detection in studies of species abundance and distribution is often imperfect. Assuming perfect detection introduces bias into estimation that can weaken inference upon which understanding and policy are based. Despite availability of numerous methods designed to address this assumption, many refereed papers in ecology fail to account for non-detection error. We conducted a quantitative literature review of 537 ecological articles to measure the degree to which studies of different taxa, at various scales, and over time have accounted for imperfect detection. Overall, just 23% of articles accounted for imperfect detection. The probability that an article incorporated imperfect detection increased with time and varied among taxa studied; studies of vertebrates were more likely to incorporate imperfect detection. Among articles that reported detection probability, 70% contained per-survey estimates of detection that were less than 0.5. For articles in which constancy of detection was tested, 86% reported significant variation. We hope that our findings prompt more ecologists to consider carefully the detection process when designing studies and analyzing results, especially for sub-disciplines where incorporation of imperfect detection in study design and analysis so far has been lacking.
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
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions
Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P., & Schapire, R. E. (2006) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.03.026 · Cited by 15,396
Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals
White, G. C., & Burnham, K. P. (1999) · Bird Study · doi:10.1080/00063659909477239 · Cited by 7,499
JAGS: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling
Plummer, M. (2003) · Cited by 4,720
ESTIMATING SITE OCCUPANCY RATES WHEN DETECTION PROBABILITIES ARE LESS THAN ONE
MacKenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Lachman, G. B., Droege, S., Andrew Royle, J., & Langtimm, C. A. (2002) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2248:esorwd]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 4,481
Analysis and Management of Animal Populations
Grand, J. B., Williams, B. K., Nichols, J. D., & Conroy, M. J. (2003) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3802722 · Cited by 2,671
Explicit estimates from capture-recapture data with both death and immigration-stochastic model
Jolly, G. M. (1965) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/52.1-2.225 · Cited by 2,605
Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations
Otis, D. L., Burnham, K. P., White, G. C., & Anderson, D. R. (1978) · Wildlife Monographs · Cited by 2,442
Distance software: design and analysis of distance sampling surveys for estimating population size
Thomas, L., Buckland, S. T., Rexstad, E. A., Laake, J. L., Strindberg, S., Hedley, S. L., Bishop, J. R. B., Marques, T. A., & Burnham, K. P. (2010) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01737.x · Cited by 2,197
Program MARK : survival estimation from populations of marked animals
Gc, W. (1999) · Bird Study · Cited by 1,973
Cited by
Guillera‐Arroita, G. (2017) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.02445 · Cited by 426
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
Bouchet, P. J., & Meeuwig, J. J. (2015) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1890/es14-00380.1 · Cited by 59
A framework for contextualizing social‐ecological biases in contributory science data
Carlen, E. J., Estien, C. O., Caspi, T., Perkins, D., Goldstein, B. R., Kreling, S. E. S., Hentati, Y., Williams, T. D., Stanton, L. A., Des Roches, S., et al. (2024) · People and Nature · doi:10.1002/pan3.10592 · Cited by 57
Lindsø, L. K., Dupont, P., Rød-Eriksen, L., Andersskog, I. P. Ø., Ulvund, K. R., Flagstad, Ø., Bischof, R., & Eide, N. E. (2022) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/s00442-021-05087-3 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Kellner, K. F., & Swihart, R. K.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2014-10-30
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- e111436
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1979985371
- Cited by
- 383
- References
- 71
- FWCI
- 12.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Accounting for Imperfect Detection in Ecology: A Quantitative Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0111436
- The paper
- Kellner, K. F., & Swihart, R. K. (2014). Accounting for Imperfect Detection in Ecology: A Quantitative Review. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111436
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.
