METHODOLOGICAL INSIGHTS: Comparing the precision and cost‐effectiveness of faecal pellet group count methods

By D. Campbell, G. Swanson, J. Sales. 2004

136 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Diel predator activity drives a dynamic landscape of fear (2017, background): “This inference is questionable because fecal pellet counts are prone to bias from observer error and variation in fecal disappearance rates (e.g., Campbell et al. 2004, Jenkins and Manly 2008).”
Behavioural interference between ungulate species: roe are not on velvet with fallow deer (2011, background): “Pellet group counts have been consistently used from several decades to estimate deer densities in areas with dense vegetation cover and scarce visibility of animals (e.g. Neff 1968; Bailey and Putman 1982; Putman 1984; Mayle 1996; Latham et al. 1997; Campbell et al. 2004).”
Assessing the relative importance of disturbance, herbivory, diversity, and propagule pressure in exotic plant invasion (2009, methodology): “Deer density was estimated from fecal pellet group counts using the fecal accumulation rate (FAR) method (i.e., clearance plot; Appendix A; Bailey and Putman 1981, Campbell et al. 2004).”