Field trials of line transect methods applied to estimation of desert tortoise abundance

By David R. Anderson, K. Burnham, Bruce C. Lubow, L. Thomas, P. S. Corn, P. Medica, R. Marlow. 2001

106 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f13214c757c8150691471b0a3fb296a9cd05172f

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecological Modeling

1. L. Thomas

In Ecology

1. S. Bagchi
2. L. Thomas
3. Tiago A. Marques
4. S. Goyal
5. D. Moretti
6. K. Sankar
7. S. Martin
8. Danielle V Harris

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. L. Thomas
2. P. Tyack

Citations in the corpus

• Prey abundance and prey selection by tigers ( Panthera tigris ) in a semi-arid, dry deciduous forest in western India (2003, methodology): “This method is efficient (Anderson et al., 2001) and has been widely applied in tropical forests (Karanth & Sunquist, 1992; Varman & Sukumar, 1995; Khan et al., 1996; Biswas & Sankar, 2002) as it provides relatively unbiased results if certain assumptions are met (Buckland et al., 1993).”
• Making Great Leaps Forward: Accounting for Detectability in Herpetological Field Studies (2007, unknown): “Although not very widespread in the herpetological literature, distance sampling methods have been used with Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) (Anderson et al., 2001; Freilich et al., 2005), Eleutherodactylus frogs (Funk et al., 2003), and forest lizards and snakes (Rodda and Campbell, 2002).”
• Consequences of violating the recapture duration assumption of mark-recapture models: a test using simulated and empirical data from an endangered tortoise population (2005, background): “However, only four mentioned the potential for bias in parameter estimates as a result of violating this assumption and only one tested empirically for potential bias (Anderson et al. 2001; Frederiksen & Bregnballe 2001; Chaloupka & Limpus 2001; Clausen et al. 2001; Forero, Tella & Oro 2001; Gauthie”
• Estimating animal population density using passive acoustics (2012, background): “…case studies of visually based surveys, providing insight into the generality of their application, the validity of their assumptions, and the consequences of their failure, under different settings (e.g. Anderson et al., 2001; sections 8.2. and 8.3 in Buckland et al., 2001; Conn et al., 2006).”
• Small-mammal density estimation: A field comparison of grid-based vs. web-based density estimators (2003, unknown): “…see White et al. (1978, 1982) and Rexstad and Burnham (1991); for TRANSECT, see Laake et al. (1979); for DISTANCE (web-based estimators), see Laake et al. (1993). variety of inanimate objects (Robinette et al. 1974, Bergstedt and Anderson 1990, Otto and Pollock 1990, Anderson et al. 2001).”