Cited by 4,481Wildlife Ecology and ConservationAmphibian and Reptile BiologyCensus and Population Estimation

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

ESTIMATING SITE OCCUPANCY RATES WHEN DETECTION PROBABILITIES ARE LESS THAN ONE

Abstract

Nondetection of a species at a site does not imply that the species is absent unless the probability of detection is 1. We propose a model and likelihood‐based method for estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are 0.3). We estimated site occupancy rates for two anuran species at 32 wetland sites in Maryland, USA, from data collected during 2000 as part of an amphibian monitoring program, Frogwatch USA. Site occupancy rates were estimated as 0.49 for American toads (Bufo americanus), a 44% increase over the proportion of sites at which they were actually observed, and as 0.85 for spring peepers (Pseudacris crucifer), slightly above the observed proportion of 0.83.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2248:esorwd]2.0.co;2

Cites

1 of 1 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. 10.2307/3803103 · DOI
  2. 10.2307/2532510 · DOI
  3. 10.1093/biomet/65.3.625 · DOI
  4. 10.2307/2532750 · DOI
  5. 10.1086/285621 · DOI
  6. R. M. Erwin, J. D. Nichols, T. B. Eyler, D. B. Stotts, and B. R. Truitt .1998 .Modeling colony site dynamics: a case study of Gull-billed Terns (Sterna nilotica) in coastal Virginia .Auk, 115 :970 -978 . · DOI
  7. 10.1086/285349 · DOI
  8. 10.2307/5591 · DOI
  9. 10.1086/284734 · DOI
  10. 10.1007/BF00776426 · DOI
  11. 10.2307/2937171 · DOI
  12. R. Levins, 1969 .Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control .Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America, 15 :237 -240 . · DOI
  13. D. I. MacKenzie, and M. S. Boyce .2001 .Estimating closed population size using negative binomial models .Western Black Bear Workshop, 7 :21 -23 .
  14. 10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1031:POMOMD]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  15. 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00434.x · DOI
  16. 10.1002/env.514 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02205-4 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 4,481

Metadata

Authors
MacKenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Lachman, G. B., Droege, S., Andrew Royle, J., & Langtimm, C. A.
Affiliations
  • North Carolina State University (US)
  • United States Geological Survey (US)
Corresponding author
MacKenzie, Darryl I.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-08
Volume
83
Issue
8
Pages
2248-2255
ISSN
0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2116665868
Cited by
4,481
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 222 · 2025: 288 · 2024: 239 · 2023: 245 · 2022: 265 · 2021: 288 · 2020: 317 · 2019: 290 · 2018: 251 · 2017: 214 · 2016: 215 · 2015: 250 · 2014: 243 · 2013: 184 · 2012: 188
FWCI
36.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Ecology (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Geological Survey
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Amphibian and Reptile Biology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Census and Population Estimation
Keywords
site occupancy, detection probability, occupancy models, likelihood estimation, missing data, covariate information, amphibian monitoring, American toad, Bufo americanus, spring peeper, Pseudacris crucifer, wetlands

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