Factors affecting detection probability in plant distribution studies

116 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.

Predicting species distributions from checklist data using site‐occupancy models (2010, background): “This is the case even for immobile organisms such as plants (Kéry et al., 2006; Chen et al., 2009).”
Conservation and the botanist effect (2011, unknown): “Consequently, mathematical frameworks that account for heterogeneous detection probabilities in surveys (e.g. Etterson et al., 2009; Garrard et al., 2008; Zuur et al., 2009), mainly developed for fauna surveys, are also highly relevant to vascular plants (Chen et al., 2009; Garrard et al., 2008).”
Difficult decisions: Strategies for conservation prioritization when taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity are not spatially congruent (2018, background): “Despite some difficulties in estimating species abundances or richness from imperfect data (e.g., Chao and Jost, 2012; Chen et al., 2009; Kellner and Swihart, 2014; MacKenzie et al., 2009; Royle et al., 2005), taxonomic-based metrics are far easier to estimate than functional or phylogenetic ones.”
Imperfect detection is the rule rather than the exception in plant distribution studies (2013, methodology): “Nevertheless, only very few studies have formally estimated the magnitude of detection errors in plants using adequate protocols and analytical methods (e.g. Alexander, Slade & Kettle 1997; Shefferson et al. 2001; Kéry & Gregg 2003; Slade, Alexander & Kettle 2003; Kéry et al. 2006; Chen et al. 2009)”