Estimating sizes of wild pig populations in the North and Central Coast regions of California

By R. Sweitzer, D. V. Vuren, I. Gardner, W. Boyce, J. Waithman. 2000

92 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Small Animals

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/48e0beb09a0d059c4daf975673647944d5d4cc86

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. Mathias Tobler
2. G. Powell
3. S. E. Carrillo-Percastegui
4. B. Harmsen
5. R. Foster
6. H. Geisser
7. R. Pitman
8. Rafael Mares

In Small Animals

1. R. Foster
2. B. Harmsen
3. Mathias Tobler
4. G. Powell

Citations in the corpus

• An evaluation of camera traps for inventorying large‐ and medium‐sized terrestrial rainforest mammals (2008, background): “, 2005; Azlan & Sharma, 2006) and estimating animal density (Mace et al., 1994; Karanth & Nichols, 1998; Sweitzer et al., 2000; Trolle & Kéry, 2003; Silver et al., 2004).”
• A critique of density estimation from camera-trap data† (2012, background): “…methods traditionally require that the number of marked animals is known, and so a sample of the population must be captured and marked (e.g., tags, collars) prior to camera trapping (e.g., Mace et al. 1994, Grogan and Lindzey 1999, Sweitzer et al. 2000, Fuller et al. 2001, Matthews et al. 2008).”
• EFFICACY OF HUNTING, FEEDING, AND FENCING TO REDUCE CROP DAMAGE BY WILD BOARS (2004, background): “Previous studies have shown that hunting can significantly reduce population density (Sweitzer et al. 2000) and damage frequency (Mazzoni della Stella et al. 1995).”