The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
IMPROVING PRECISION AND REDUCING BIAS IN BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS: ESTIMATING FALSE‐NEGATIVE ERROR RATES
Abstract
The use of presence/absence data in wildlife management and biological surveys is widespread. There is a growing interest in quantifying the sources of error associated with these data. We show that false‐negative errors (failure to record a species when in fact it is present) can have a significant impact on statistical estimation of habitat models using simulated data. Then we introduce an extension of logistic modeling, the zero‐inflated binomial (ZIB) model that permits the estimation of the rate of false‐negative errors and the correction of estimates of the probability of occurrence for false‐negative errors by using repeated visits to the same site. Our simulations show that even relatively low rates of false negatives bias statistical estimates of habitat effects. The method with three repeated visits eliminates the bias, but estimates are relatively imprecise. Six repeated visits improve precision of estimates to levels comparable to that achieved with conventional statistics in the absence of false‐negative errors. In general, when error rates are ≤50% greater efficiency is gained by adding more sites, whereas when error rates are >50% it is better to increase the number of repeated visits. We highlight the flexibility of the method with three case studies, clearly demonstrating the effect of false‐negative errors for a range of commonly used survey methods.
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
Model Selection and Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach
Strawderman, R. L., Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2000) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2669574 · Cited by 4,194
Statistical Analysis of Finite Mixture Distributions.
Lindsay, B. G., Titterington, D. M., Smith, A. F. M., & Makov, U. E. (1987) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2289504 · Cited by 2,905
Collett, D. (1991) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-4475-7 · Cited by 1,936
The ecological detective: confronting models with data
(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.35-1501 · Cited by 1,726
Zero‐Inflated Poisson and Binomial Regression with Random Effects: A Case Study
Hall, D. B. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.01030.x · Cited by 913
Wildlife-Habitat Relationships: Concepts and Applications
Noon, B. R., Morrison, M. L., Marcot, B. G., & Mannan, R. W. (1993) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3809101 · Cited by 801
Practical Use of the Information-Theoretic Approach
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (1998) · Model Selection and Inference · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-2917-7_3 · Cited by 753
Ecological Neighborhoods: Scaling Environmental Patterns
Addicott, J. F., Aho, J. M., Antolin, M. F., Padilla, D. K., Richardson, J. S., & Soluk, D. A. (1987) · Oikos · doi:10.2307/3565770 · Cited by 629
Measurement of the Realized Qualitative Niche: Environmental Niches of Five Eucalyptus Species
Austin, M. P., Nicholls, A. O., & Margules, C. R. (1990) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.2307/1943043 · Cited by 498
Assessment of Counting Techniques
Verner, J. (1985) · Current Ornithology · doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-2385-3_8 · Cited by 448
Cited by
Ecological models and data in R
Bolker, B. M. (2008) · doi:10.2307/j.ctvcm4g37 · Cited by 1,297
“PROBABILITY AND STOCHASTIC DISTRIBUTIONS FOR ECOLOGICAL MODELING125 This distribution is called the zero-inflated binomial (Inouye, 1999; Tyre et al., 2003).”
BackgroundIs my species distribution model fit for purpose? Matching data and models to applications
Guillera‐Arroita, G., Lahoz‐Monfort, J. J., Elith, J., Gordon, A., Kujala, H., Lentini, P. E., McCarthy, M. A., Tingley, R., & Wintle, B. A. (2015) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1111/geb.12268 · Cited by 961
Zero tolerance ecology: improving ecological inference by modelling the source of zero observations
Martin, T. G., Wintle, B. A., Rhodes, J. R., Kuhnert, P. M., Field, S. A., Low‐Choy, S. J., Tyre, A. J., & Possingham, H. P. (2005) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00826.x · Cited by 935
Self-citationMarcot, B. G., Steventon, J. D., Sutherland, G. D., & McCann, R. K. (2006) · Canadian Journal of Forest Research · doi:10.1139/x06-135 · Cited by 667
Error and uncertainty in habitat models
BARRY, S., & ELITH, J. (2006) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01136.x · Cited by 657
Metadata
- Authors
- Tyre, A. J., Tenhumberg, B., Field, S. A., Niejalke, D., Parris, K., & Possingham, H. P.
- Venue
- Ecological Applications
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-12
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1790-1801
- ISSN
- 1051-0761 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-5582
- OpenAlex
- W2155187887
- Cited by
- 803
- References
- 18
- FWCI
- 14.23
- 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: IMPROVING PRECISION AND REDUCING BIAS IN BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS: ESTIMATING FALSE‐NEGATIVE ERROR RATES. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/02-5078
- The paper
- Tyre, A. J., Tenhumberg, B., Field, S. A., Niejalke, D., Parris, K., & Possingham, H. P. (2003). IMPROVING PRECISION AND REDUCING BIAS IN BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS: ESTIMATING FALSE‐NEGATIVE ERROR RATES. Ecological Applications. https://doi.org/10.1890/02-5078
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.
