Density estimation in wildlife surveys

By J. Bart, S. Droege, P. Geissler, B. Peterjohn, C. J. Ralph. 2004

78 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.

EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE AUDITORY DETECTION PROCESS ON AVIAN POINT COUNTS (2007, background): “Nevertheless, there is a general consensus among scientists that factors producing a biased trend in detection probability over space or time are the most problematic (Williams et al. 2002, Pollock et al. 2002, Bart et al. 2004).”
Imperfect detection and its consequences for monitoring for conservation (2008, background): “Variation around a constant expectation over time will just add noise into the observed counts, but no bias relative to the true population trajectory (Bart et al. 2004).”
Estimating species richness: calibrating a large avian monitoring programme (2005, background): “We note that there has been some confusion in the literature about what ‘constancy’ means ( Bart et al . 2004 ): it is the expectation of p and not p itself that needs to be constant.”
Evaluating Methods for Counting Cryptic Carnivores (2009, background): “Although indices of abundance may be useful for specific management purposes, it is generally more desirable to establish absolute abundance (Bart et al. 2004).”