An evaluation of two methods of assessing feral cat and dingo abundance in central Australia

By G. Edwards, N. D. Preu, B. Shakeshaft, I. Crealy. 2000

93 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Genetics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/47bd0d6ebdb36385d1081b7cd136600578854676

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

1. G. Wilson
2. R. Delahay

In Genetics

1. G. Wilson
2. R. Delahay

Citations in the corpus

• Wildlife population monitoring: some practical considerations (2005, unknown): “On the other hand, Edwards et al. (2000) compared two methods of estimating relative abundance of carnivores: passive track station surveys were more time-efficient and offered higher precision than spotlight surveys.”
• A review of methods to estimate the abundance of terrestrial carnivores using field signs and observation (2001, methodology): “The use of scented attractants may be particularly susceptible to seasonal and density-dependent variations in activity (Allen et al. 1996; Edwards et al. 2000).”