AN ASSESSMENT OF MONITORING EFFORTS IN ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY PLANS

By S. P. Campbell, J. Clark, L. Crampton, A. Guerry, L. Hatch, P. Hosseini, Joshua J. Lawler, R. O’Connor. 2002

159 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5bfe3a46ed021bb34cfd7085769db57fa4fbb30e

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecological Modeling

1. B. R. Schmidt
2. J. Pellet
3. John Boulanger
4. Marc Kéry
5. T. Beebee
6. R. Griffiths
7. David B. Lindenmayer
8. Gene E. Likens

In Ecology

1. D. Paetkau
2. B. R. Schmidt
3. John Boulanger
4. K. Kendall
5. Jeffrey B. Stetz
6. J. Pellet
7. G. White
8. Bruce N. McLellan

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. G. White
2. J. Pellet
3. B. R. Schmidt
4. K. Kendall

Citations in the corpus

• Monitoring distributions using call surveys: estimating site occupancy, detection probabilities and inferring absence. (2005, methodology): “Monitoring presence-absence of species is easier and cheaper and a commonly used approach to monitoring (Thompson et al., 1998; Campbell et al., 2002).”
• Demography and Genetic Structure of a Recovering Grizzly Bear Population (2009, background): “Abundance estimates are the most common quantitative criterion in recovery plans (Gerber and Hatch 2002); however, they are often imprecise, error-ridden, or based on guesses (Holmes 2001, Campbell et al. 2002).”