Approaches for the direct estimation of u , and demographic contributions to u , using capture-recapture data

By James D. Nichols, J. Hines. 2002

152 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/afee6a3b241bb67f8843578ab94615fd15d87d88

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. Bruce N. McLellan
2. John Boulanger
3. M. Proctor
4. J. G. Woods
5. C. Strobeck
6. D. Pletscher
7. David J. Fletcher
8. Peter W. Dillingham

In Statistics and Probability

1. M. Proctor
2. John Boulanger
3. Bruce N. McLellan
4. J. G. Woods
5. C. Strobeck
6. Peter W. Dillingham
7. Richard J. Barker
8. Evan G. Cooch

Citations in the corpus

• A review of survival estimates for raptors and owls (2016, background): “Such matrices are therefore asymmetric with respect to movements, typically including movement in estimates of losses (emigration) but not in estimates of gains (immigration), and thereby leading to underestimates of projected growth rates (e.g. Nichols & Hines 2002).”
• Estimating the ability of birds to sustain additional human-caused mortalities using a simple decision rule and allometric relationships (2008, background): “Survival is typically estimated using capture‐recapture methods which naturally incorporate emigration but not immigration ( Nichols and Hines, 2002; Peery et al., 2006).”
• Impact of Spatial and Temporal Variation in Calf Survival on the Growth of Elk Populations (2007, background): “…most efficient management strategy will not only be determined by the influence of calf survival on k and the magnitude of change in calf survival due to the management action but also by the cost of the management technique (see Nichols and Hines 2002 for a mathematical description of this idea).”
• Discussion comments on: 'Approaches for the direct estimation of u and demographic contributions to u using capture-recapture data' (2002, background): “Here, we will focus on several issues which Nichols & Hines (2002) raise.”
• SAMPLING DESIGN AND BIAS IN DNA-BASED CAPTURE–MARK–RECAPTURE POPULATION AND DENSITY ESTIMATES OF GRIZZLY BEARS (2004, methodology): “For example, the Pradel model (Pradel 1996) in program MARK estimates population rate of change and is more robust to heterogeneity of capture probabilities such as cub bias and closure violation (Schwarz 2001, Franklin 2002, Hines and Nichols 2002, Nichols and Hines 2002, Williams et al. 2002).”