HOW SHOULD DETECTION PROBABILITY BE INCORPORATED INTO ESTIMATES OF RELATIVE ABUNDANCE

By D. MacKenzie, W. Kendall. 2002

276 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1a29e3bb9a1df8e068ac3328d42406e00a7abb76

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Estimates from non‐replicated population surveys rely on critical assumptions (2015, background): “The above equivalence is unsurprising (cf. MacKenzie & Kendall 2002), but clearly points out that under the, oftentimes tenuous (Thomas 1996), assumption of detection probabilities being constant over time, simple Poissonmodels are able to account for variable detection among sites in estimating…”
Guidelines for developing and updating Bayesian belief networks applied to ecological modeling and conservation (2006, background): “However, indices of species detectability can be included explicitly in BBNs and in population estimates (MacKenzie and Kendall 2002) as shown in our squirrel example.”
When can we ignore the problem of imperfect detection in comparative studies? (2012, background): “MacKenzie & Kendall (2002) discussed ways of incorporating detectability into abundance ratios (relative abundances) and recommended estimating detectability in all cases.”
Imperfect detection and its consequences for monitoring for conservation (2008, background): “Hence, an observed pattern over time in abundance or species richness (i.e., a trend T) based on counts at two time points is (3) In contrast, the true trend (or more generally, relative abundance; MacKenzie and Kendall 2002) is E(T ) = N /N .”
Monitoring distributions using call surveys: estimating site occupancy, detection probabilities and inferring absence. (2005, methodology): “Although most monitoring uses standard methods, detection probabilities are never constant (MacKenzie and Kendall, 2002).”
Monitoring the distribution of pond‐breeding amphibians when species are detected imperfectly (2005, background): “Unfortunately, detection probabilities are far more often variable than constant ( MacKenzie and Kendall, 2002 ).”
In Defense of Indices: The Case of Bird Surveys (2008, methodology): “…1995; Thompson et al. 1998; Nichols et al. 2000; Anderson 2001, 2003; Williams et al. 2001; Yoccoz et al. 2001; Farnsworth et al. 2002, 2005; MacKenzie and Kendall 2002; Rosenstock et al. 2002; Ellingson and Lukacs 2003; Norvell et al. 2003; White 2005; Buckland 2006; Kissling and Garton…”
Effect of sampling effort and species detectability on volunteer based anuran monitoring programs (2005, methodology): “MacKenzie and Kendall (2002) argued that we should assume that detection probabilities are different unless otherwise demonstrated.”
RELATING SIZE OF JUVENILES TO SURVIVAL WITHIN AND AMONG POPULATIONS OF CHINOOK SALMON (2004, background): “Since survival and recapture probabilities are intimately related in the data, it is imperative to specify recapture probabilities as accurately as possible (MacKenzie and Kendall 2002).”
Anuran Calling Survey Optimization: Developing and Testing Predictive Models of Anuran Calling Activity (2010, methodology): “The problem of imperfect detection is well known, and methods currently exist that help to account for it (MacKenzie and Kendall, 2002; MacKenzie et al., 2002; Mazerolle et al., 2007).”
Estimating species richness: calibrating a large avian monitoring programme (2005, background): “If the index assumption is not true, then ratios of species counted at different places or times will only provide a biased estimate of the relative richness of two places or points in time ( MacKenzie & Kendall 2002 ).”