Monitoring the distribution of pond‐breeding amphibians when species are detected imperfectly

94 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.

Inference About Species Richness and Community Structure Using Species-Specific Occupancy Models in the National Swiss Breeding Bird Survey MHB (2009, background): “In most situations, some species will be overlooked (Schmidt 2005).”
Making Great Leaps Forward: Accounting for Detectability in Herpetological Field Studies (2007, methodology): “For instance, Schmidt (2005) and Pellet and Schmidt (2005) used site occupancy models on different call survey data of Natterjack Toads (Bufo calamita) to estimate mean detectability as 27.3% and 44.2%, respectively.”
Auditory monitoring of anuran populations (2009, background): “as well as some European (e.g. Anthony 2002; Pellet and Schmidt 2005; Schmidt 2005; Scott et al. 2008), and Central American countries (e.”
Trend estimation in populations with imperfect detection (2009, background): “However, even the tightest standardization may fail to produce constant detection probability ( Schmidt 2005; Brown, Hines & Ke´ ry 2007; Hochachka & Fielder 2008).”
Imperfect detection and its consequences for monitoring for conservation (2008, methodology): “Typically, this strong assumption of constant is neither tested nor even stated explicitly, although the assumptions of perfect or constant have probably been proven wrong whenever they were tested, e.g., in plants (Kéry et al. 2006), fish (Royle and Dorazio 2006) or frogs (Schmidt 2005).”