Accounting for non‐independent detection when estimating abundance of organisms with a Bayesian approach

By Julien Martin, J. Andrew Royle, D. MacKenzie, Holly H. Edwards, Marc Kéry, Beth Gardner. 2011

94 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f1d27d3441e1add48a3ac2f0482f3887ecd5062e

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. Jonas Knape
2. Debora Arlt
3. Holly
4. Raudino
5. Sprogis
6. Kate
7. Mathieu Chevalier
8. F. Barraquand

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. Jonas Knape
2. Holly
3. Raudino
4. Sprogis
5. Kate
6. F. Barraquand
7. Åke Berg

Citations in the corpus

• Home range size of adult Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) in a coastal and estuarine system is habitat and sex-specific (2016, background): “Values close to 0.5 suggest no evidence of poor model fit, whereas P-values close to 0 or 1 suggests a poor model fit (Martin et al. 2011).”
• Sensitivity of binomial N‐mixture models to overdispersion: The importance of assessing model fit (2018, background): “Previous studies have found that abundance can be severely overestimated under N-mixture models when detection probabilities vary randomly among visits and that such overdispersion may be dealt with using a beta-binomial detection model (Martin et al., 2011).”