LANDBIRD COUNTING TECHNIQUES: CURRENT PRACTICES AND AN ALTERNATIVE

By S. Rosenstock, David R. Anderson, K. Giesen, T. Leukering, Michael F. Carter. 2002

517 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9831ec3155369ec1424637a3428ccfd30e99f231

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

Citations in the corpus

Inferences About Landbird Abundance from Count Data: Recent Advances and Future Directions (2009, background): “Early on, some investigators argued that the proportionality assumption is not likely to be widely met, or at least merits testing, and advocated the collection of supplemental data with counts that permit inference about the detection probabilities of individual birds and thus about true abundance ”
Calibrating indices of avian density from non‐standardized survey data: making the most of a messy situation (2013, methodology): “Point-count surveys are the most widely used method for counting terrestrial birds (Rosenstock et al. 2002; Bart 2005).”
In Defense of Indices: The Case of Bird Surveys (2008, background): “Standard recommendations are for 60–100 detections per species (Buckland et al. 2001, Rosenstock et al. 2002), which basically eliminates the use of distance sampling for all but the commonest species, which typically are of lesser conservation interest.”
ESTIMATING DETECTION PROBABILITY AND DENSITY FROM POINT-COUNT SURVEYS: A COMBINATION OF DISTANCE AND DOUBLE-OBSERVER SAMPLING (2006, result): “The shortcomings of unadjusted point counts have long been recognized (Barker and Sauer 1995, Rosenstock et al. 2002, Thompson 2002, Diefenbach et al. 2003, Norvell et al. 2003, Farnsworth et al. 2005, and others), and our results further substantiate recommendations to abandon their use for…”
EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE AUDITORY DETECTION PROCESS ON AVIAN POINT COUNTS (2007, background): “Rosenstock et al. (2002) reviewed 224 papers from nine peer-reviewed journals reporting sampling techniques used to draw inference about bird abundance.”
The 'standardized search': An improved way to conduct bird surveys (2003, methodology): “More recently, several reviews have highlighted the difficulties associated with estimating avian density, with factors including apparency and detectability known to differ among species, sites, seasons, and surveyors (Nichols et al. 2000; Pagen et al. 2002; Rosenstock et al. 2002).”
Generalized estimators of avian abundance from count survey data (2004, methodology): “These methods include those based multiple observer sampling (Cook & Jacobson, 1979; Nichols et al., 2000), temporary removal (Farnsworth et al., 2002), distance sampling (Rosenstock et al., 2002) and even simple point counts (Royle, 2004a).”
ESTIMATING ABUNDANCE FROM REPEATED PRESENCE–ABSENCE DATA OR POINT COUNTS (2003, background): “…measurements are imprecise, or when there is ambiguity in the number of unique birds seen, inference about abundance is not really possible without very restrictive assumptions about stationarity of detection probabilities (e.g., see Nichols et al. 2000, Anderson 2001, Rosenstock et al. 2002).”