The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Improving occupancy estimation when two types of observational error occur: non-detection and species misidentification
Abstract
Efforts to draw inferences about species occurrence frequently account for false negatives, the common situation when individuals of a species are not detected even when a site is occupied. However, recent studies suggest the need to also deal with false positives, which occur when species are misidentified so that a species is recorded as detected when a site is unoccupied. Bias in estimators of occupancy, colonization, and extinction can be severe when false positives occur. Accordingly, we propose models that simultaneously account for both types of error. Our approach can be used to improve estimates of occupancy for study designs where a subset of detections is of a type or method for which false positives can be assumed to not occur. We illustrate properties of the estimators with simulations and data for three species of frogs. We show that models that account for possible misidentification have greater support (lower AIC for two species) and can yield substantially different occupancy estimates than those that do not. When the potential for misidentification exists, researchers should consider analytical techniques that can account for this source of error, such as those presented here.
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
Automated classification of bird and amphibian calls using machine learning: A comparison of methods
Acevedo, M. A., Corrada-Bravo, C. J., Corrada-Bravo, H., Villanueva-Rivera, L. J., & Aide, T. M. (2009) · Ecological Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2009.06.005 · Cited by 317
Cited by
Guillera‐Arroita, G. (2017) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.02445 · Cited by 426
(2021) · doi:10.1111/ddi.13271 · Cited by 407
Dhami, B., Bhusal, A., Neupane, B., Kc, N., Lamichhane, S., Bhattarai, D., & Shrestha, B. (2023) · Global Ecology and Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2023.e02648 · Cited by 11
Bigfoot: If it's there, could it be a bear?
Foxon, F. (2024) · Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1111/jzo.13148 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Miller, D. A., Nichols, J. D., McClintock, B. T., Grant, E. H. C., Bailey, L. L., & Weir, L. A.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-07
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1422-1428
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2014992919
- Cited by
- 391
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 17.22
- 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 occupancy estimation when two types of observational error occur: non-detection and species misidentification. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/10-1396.1
- The paper
- Miller, D. A., Nichols, J. D., McClintock, B. T., Grant, E. H. C., Bailey, L. L., & Weir, L. A. (2011). Improving occupancy estimation when two types of observational error occur: non-detection and species misidentification. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-1396.1
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.