Correcting wildlife counts using detection probabilities

By G. White. 2005

129 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.

Estimating population size by spatially explicit capture–recapture (2013, methodology): “…using AIC (Burnham and Anderson 2002), finite and continuous mixtures to allow for unmodelled individual heterogeneity (Pledger 2000, Dorazio and Royle 2003), and general use of the software MARK as a framework for modelling with covariates and constraints (White and Burnham 1999, White 2005).”
Abundance, Density and Relative Abundance: A Conceptual Framework (2011, background): “Ideally, covariates are chosen based on their purported influence on abundance or other parameters of interest, including detectability (White 2005).”
In Defense of Indices: The Case of Bird Surveys (2008, background): “An additional topic worthy of study is the value of modelbased, rather than sample-based, estimators of detectability (Samuel et al. 1987, White 2005).”
Making Great Leaps Forward: Accounting for Detectability in Herpetological Field Studies (2007, background): “Yet, these assumptions are rarely tested for their validity or even acknowledged (Anderson, 2001; Pollock et al., 2002; Williams et al., 2002; White, 2005).”
Effect of fire on small mammals: a systematic review (2014, background): “Uncorrected estimates of population size are usually biased and are often not even proportional to actual population size (White 2005).”