When is it meaningful to estimate an extinction probability

By J. Fieberg, Stephen P. Ellner. 2000

208 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, Water Science and Technology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ccc56f1852bcdc0a3cbc43d9e133f4b3b88ccb4a

How researchers see this paper

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

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

1. C. Schultz
2. P. Hammond
3. Michael Schaub
4. Marc Kéry
5. K. Norris
6. Marc Mangel
7. M. McCarthy
8. P. Kareiva

In Water Science and Technology

1. C. Schultz
2. P. Hammond
3. Michael Schaub
4. Marc Kéry
5. Marc Mangel
6. K. Norris
7. M. McCarthy

Citations in the corpus

• Reliability of Relative Predictions in Population Viability Analysis (2003, background): “Fieberg and Ellner (2000) investigated the precision of absolute risks and concluded that the length of the time series needed to be 5–10 times the time frame of the predictions for PVA to be reliable.”
• Managing threatened species: the ecological toolbox, evolutionary theory and declining-population paradigm (2004, background): “2002), although this is not a consensus view (for details of this debate see Beissinger & Westphal 1998; Ludwig 1999; Fieberg & Ellner 2000; Brook et al .”
• Evolutionarily enlightened management (2003, background): “…lack of (or inappropriate) model validation (McCarthy et al., 2001), inaccuracy in parameter estimation (Beissinger and Westphal, 1998; Ellner et al., 2002) and overall imprecision (Ludwig, 1999; Fieberg and Ellner, 2000), but evolutionary responses of the modeled species have not been considered.”
• Using adaptive management to determine requirements of re‐introduced populations: the case of the New Zealand hihi (2007, unknown): “Predictions about population persistence are subject to considerable uncertainty (Fieberg & Ellner 2000; Ellner et al .”
• Pragmatic population viability targets in a rapidly changing world (2010, unknown): “The Ne is the ‘currency’ used to describe the evolutionary MVP. Critics argue that PVAs are only practically useful for predicting extinction risk where data are extensive and reliable and projection time frames are short (Fieberg and Ellner, 2000).”
• Population viability analysis of Cypripedium calceolus in a protected area: longevity, stability and persistence (2005, background): “…the parameters will change over such a long time period (for example due to successional processes), and that the effects of both slow environmental changes, catastrophic events and uncertainties are complex and difficult to predict (Ludwig 1999; Burgman & Possingham 2000; Fieberg & Ellner 2000).”
• Emerging Issues in Population Viability Analysis (2002, background): “We thank M. Groom and two anonymous reviewers for comments on this manuscript.”
• Population Viability Analysis (2022, methodology): “Imprecision in PVA predictions has led to questions about its value [19].”
• Efficacy of simple viability models in ecological risk assessment: Does density dependence matter? (2004, background): “E-mail: john.l.sabo@asu.edu gen et al. 1998, Morris and Doak 2002), and the extraordinarily large confidence intervals around estimates of risk (Ludwig 1999, Fieberg and Ellner 2000).”
• POPULATION VIABILITY ANALYSIS IN ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY PLANS: PAST USE AND FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS (2002, background): “For example, all steps in the recruitment process might not be quantified, or censuses might not be performed for a sufficient number of years to enable an accurate PVA to be performed (Fieberg and Ellner 2000).”
• Expected minimum population size as a measure of threat (2001, background): “As reported elsewhere (Dennis et al., 1991; Fieberg & Ellner, 2000), risks of population decline change abruptly with changes in the mean population growth rate, with the sharpest change occurring when the variation in the population growth rate is low (Fig.”
• Living on the Edge: Viability of Moose in Northeastern Minnesota (2010, background): “1020 The Journal of Wildlife Management N 74(5) Estimates of growth rates and extinction probabilities from demographic models are often difficult to interpret because of the large uncertainties associated with population projections (Ludwig 1999, Fieberg and Ellner 2000).”
• A FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING THE RELATIVE VULNERABILITY OF SPECIES TO LAND-USE CHANGE (2004, result): “Another difference between our work and previous efforts is that we do not try to predict the extinction probability for each species, an approach that has received some recent criticism (Ludwig 1999, Fieberg and Ellner 2000).”
• The accuracy of matrix population model projections for coniferous trees in the Sierra Nevada, California (2005, background): “Data quality issues have received considerable attention, particularly in terms of errors and biases in sampling (Ludwig 1999; Fieberg & Ellner 2000; Meir & Fagan 2000).”