Closure violation in DNA-based mark-recapture estimation of grizzly bear populations

By John Boulanger, Bruce N. McLellan. 2001

108 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c31d51f7e46aec39f22d183c7523c920d23f11ce

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

SOURCES OF HETEROGENEITY BIAS WHEN DNA MARK-RECAPTURE SAMPLING METHODS ARE APPLIED TO GRIZZLY BEAR (URSUS ARCTOS) POPULATIONS (2004, methodology): “Our method of modeling capture probabilities of bears as a function of distance captured from grid (Boulanger and McLellan 2001) directly estimates capture probability bias caused by closure violation.”
Ecological investigations of grizzly bears in Canada using DNA from hair, 1995–2005: a review of methods and progress (2010, methodology): “Where applicable, we used the distance a capture (or the average of multiple captures) was from the grid edge as a covariate to explicitly model closure violation (Boulanger and McLellan 2001).”
Snow leopard Panthera uncia predation on livestock and wild prey in a mountain valley in northern Nepal: implications for conservation management (2012, methodology): “This is still a relatively long sampling period, which likely would violate an assumption of population closure, if we had chosen a capture-markrecapture approach to estimate snow leopard abundance (e.g. Kendall 1999, Boulanger & McLellan 2001).”
Density Estimation by Spatially Explicit Capture–Recapture: Likelihood-Based Methods (2009, background): “Passive DNA sampling (e.g. Woods et al. 1999; Mills et al. 2000; Boulanger and McLellan 2001; Boulanger et al. 2004) and camera traps (e.”
ESTIMATING GRIZZLY BEAR DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE RELATIVE TO HABITAT AND HUMAN INFLUENCE (2004, background): “For bears, recent advancements have been made in noninvasive hair-capture, genetic tagging, and population density estimation (Woods et al. 1999, Mowat and Strobeck 2000, Boulanger and McLellan 2001, Poole et al. 2001).”
Evaluating the potential biases in carnivore capture–recapture studies associated with the use of lure and varying density estimation techniques using photographic-sampling data of the Malagasy civet (2011, methodology): “We included a priori biologically plausible models in this full Pradel analysis (Boulanger and McLellan 2001).”
SAMPLING DESIGN AND BIAS IN DNA-BASED CAPTURE–MARK–RECAPTURE POPULATION AND DENSITY ESTIMATES OF GRIZZLY BEARS (2004, methodology): “To minimize closure violation, grid placement with respect to topographic barriers and areas of high bear density may be more important than grid size alone (Boulanger and McLellan 2001).”