Small-mammal density estimation: A field comparison of grid-based vs. web-based density estimators

By R. Parmenter, T. Yates, David R. Anderson, K. Burnham, J. Dunnum, A. Franklin, M. Friggens, Bruce C. Lubow, Michael S. Miller, Gail S. Olson and 6 more. 2003

222 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/785deb0862f0147e52ad6935c02085a0a47e1cb1

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. M. Kelly
2. Mathias Tobler
3. G. Powell
4. B. Harmsen
5. R. Foster
6. A. Noss
7. Beth Gardner
8. L. Maffei

In Statistics and Probability

1. Beth Gardner
2. Mathias Tobler
3. G. Powell
4. J. Andrew Royle
5. B. Harmsen
6. R. Foster
7. A. F. O'connell
8. M. Kelly

Citations in the corpus

• A critique of density estimation from camera-trap data† (2012, methodology): “Parmenter et al. (2003) evaluated the use of W ¼ 0.5 MMDM versus MMDM in the density estimation of enclosed rodent populations of known size.”
• Evaluating the potential biases in carnivore capture–recapture studies associated with the use of lure and varying density estimation techniques using photographic-sampling data of the Malagasy civet (2011, background): “The MMDM buffer has been supported by several studies (Parmenter et al. 2003; Soisalo and Cavalcanti 2006; Trolle et al. 2007; Dillon and Kelly 2008); however, there is no theoretical framework for why this value should provide consistent and reliable density estimates.”
• Can species distribution modelling provide estimates of population densities? A case study with jaguars in the Neotropics (2012, background): “This issue has been discussed (Parmenter et al., 2003; Soisalo & Cavalcanti, 2006; Maffei & Noss, 2008), and Maffei & Noss (2008) recommend that camera trap surveys should encompass at least four average home ranges of the target species.”
• Ocelot home range, overlap and density: comparing radio telemetry with camera trapping (2008, methodology): “Use of the full MMDM camera trapping buffer, as suggested by Parmenter et al. (2003), Trolle & Kery (2005) and Soisalo & Cavalcanti (2006), produced estimates of density that were very similar to those estimates based on our home-range radii.”
• Comparison of density estimation methods for mammal populations with camera traps in the Kaa‐Iya del Gran Chaco landscape (2012, background): “For species that exhibit such traits, enumerating the exact size of a population (Parmenter et al., 2003) is almost never possible, thus requiring reliable estimates of population size/ abundance to make sound inferences about population parameters or rates of change.”
• An invasive‐native mammalian species replacement process captured by camera trap survey random encounter models (2016, background): “2003), rodents (Parmenter et al. 2003), primates (Marshall et al.”
• Estimating abundance of mountain lions from unstructured spatial sampling (2012, methodology): “…with strips equal to one-half the average territory size (Dice 1938, Karanth and Nichols 1998, Bales et al. 2005), or using additional information from previous studies to estimate amounts of movement expected of individuals (White and Shenk 2001, Parmenter et al. 2003, Lukacs and Burnham 2005).”
• Camera-trap studies of maned wolf density in the Cerrado and the Pantanal of Brazil (2007, methodology): “The MMDM is used in the camera-trapping surveys as a proxy for home range diameter, and is used to estimate effective survey area in two ways: Wilson and Anderson (1985) recommend applying a buffer of HMMDM around trap sites, whereas Parmenter et al. (2003) recommend applying a buffer equal to MMDM.”
• Density and activity patterns of ocelots (Leopardus pardalis) in northern Peru and the impact of oil exploration activities (2010, background): “Although recent research indicates that MMDM from camera surveys approximates actual average home range diameter of ocelots when survey areas are sufficiently large relative to the target animal’s home range size (Maffei and Noss, 2008), other research suggests that at least under some conditions, d”
• Estimating jaguar densities with camera traps: Problems with current designs and recommendations for future studies (2013, methodology): “…choice for the buffer width was previously suggested by Soisalo and Cavalcanti (2006) and Sharma et al. (2010) based on their comparison with telemetry data from the same site, by Parmenter et al. (2003) based on field studies with small rodents, and by Ivan (2011) based on simulations studies.”