Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 982

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Estimating Uncertainty in Population Growth Rates: Jackknife vs. Bootstrap Techniques

Meyer, Joseph S., Ingersoll, Christopher G., McDonald, Lyman L., Boyce, Marks S.·1986·Ecology

Abstract

Although per capita rates of increase (r) have been calculated by population biologists for decades, the inability to estimate uncertainty (variance) associated with r values has until recently precluded statistical comparisons of population growth rates. In this study, we used two computer—intensive techniques, jackknifing and Bootstrapping, to estimate bias, standard errors, and sampling distributions of r for real and hypothetical populations of cladocerans. Results generated using the two techniques, using data on laboratory cohorts of Daphnia pulex, were almost identical, as were results for a hypothetical D. pulex population whose sampling distribution was approximately normal. However, for another hypothetical population whose sampling distribution was negatively skewed due to high juvenile mortality, Bootstrap and full—sample estimates of r were negatively biased by 3.3 and 1.8%, respectively. A bias adjustment reduced the bias in the Bootstrap estimate and produced estimates of r and se(r) almost identical to those of the Jackknife technique. In general, our simulations show that the Jackknife will provide more cost—effective point and interval estimates of r for cladoceran populations, except when juvenile mortality is high (at least >25%). Coefficients of variation in the mean of r within laboratory cohorts of D. pulex were one—half to one—third the magnitude of the corresponding coefficients of variation in the mean of total reproduction and in the mean day to death (range of values of cv°[r] = 1.6 to 3.8%). This suggests that extremes in reproductive output and survival of individuals tend to be dampened at the population level, and that within—cohort variability in r is not explosive. Moreover, between—cohort variability in r can be much greater than within—cohort variability, as indicated by a statistically significant difference of 30% (P ° .01) between the high and low r values that were computed for four cohorts of D. pulex born during a 1—mo period from the same laboratory stock population. based on variability in per capita rates of increase that have been estimated for several cladoceran species, we suggest that the precision for reporting r values should in most cases be limited to two significant figures.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/1938671

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 982

Metadata

Authors
Meyer, J. S., Ingersoll, C. G., McDonald, L. L., & Boyce, M. S.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1986-10
Volume
67
Issue
5
Pages
1156-1166
ISSN
0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2082904278
Cited by
982
References
8
FWCI
7.66
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: Estimating Uncertainty in Population Growth Rates: Jackknife vs. Bootstrap Techniques. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1938671
The paper
Meyer, J. S., Ingersoll, C. G., McDonald, L. L., & Boyce, M. S. (1986). Estimating Uncertainty in Population Growth Rates: Jackknife vs. Bootstrap Techniques. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1938671

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.