Estimating black bear population density and genetic diversity at Tensas River, Louisiana using microsatellite DNA markers

By Mark R. Boersen, J. D. Clark, T. King. 2003

122 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ad90e4fb3bc1a62c0b8bcfb6cf1b65ee2380295d

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Grizzly Bear Density in Glacier National Park, Montana (2008, background): “Sampling at baited, systematically distributed barbed-wire hair traps is widely used to estimate bear population abundance (Boulanger et al. 2002, Boersen et al. 2003).”
Maintaining tiger connectivity and minimizing extinction into the next century: Insights from landscape genetics and spatially-explicit simulations (2017, background): “Small, isolated populations have known genetic consequences, including low variation (Frankham 1996; Boersen et al. 2003), increased inbreeding and increased disease susceptibility (Spielman et al. 2004; Trinkel et al. 2011), and heightened extinction risk (Saccheri et al. 1998).”
Genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation and loss: the case of the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) (2007, background): “…genetic variation in most Florida black bear populations was within the range reported for other black bear populations in North America using > 5 of the same microsatellite loci (Paetkau and Strobeck 1994; Warrillow et al. 2001; Marshall and Ritland 2002; Boerson et al. 2003; Csiki et al. 2003).”
Estimating Black Bear Density Using DNA Data From Hair Snares (2010, methodology): “We apply a spatially explicit, capture–recapture model to data obtained from a black bear study in New York, USA, collected from an array of hair-snare traps.”
Estimating Population Size of Elusive Animals with DNA from Hunter‐Collected Feces: Four Methods for Brown Bears (2005, methodology): “Most researchers use only one method (e.g., Banks et al. 2003; Boersen et al. 2003; Flagstad et al. 2004; Mowat & Paetkau 2003), which makes them subject to the biases of this method.”