Large scale wildlife monitoring studies: statistical methods for design and analysis

By K. Pollock, James D. Nichols, Theodore Simons, George L. Farnsworth, L. Bailey, John R. Sauer. 2002

679 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f324f12a6d7a094bb1c8785dd4b90404ac371c09

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

Calibrating indices of avian density from non‐standardized survey data: making the most of a messy situation (2013, background): “The resultant estimates could then be applied to the entire data set when modelling density (Bart &Ernst 2002; Pollock et al. 2002).”
Management by proxy?:the use of indices in applied ecology (2015, methodology): “These proxy methods have all been the focus of considerable concern (McDonald & Harris 1999; Jennelle, Runge & MacKenzie 2002; Pollock et al. 2002; Webbon, Baker & Harris 2004; Keane, Jones & Milner-Gulland 2011; Saska et al. 2013).”
As clear as mud: A critical review of evidence for the ecological roles of Australian dingoes (2013, background): “Many of these considerations essentially amount to issues of detection probability, and have been discussed in greater detail elsewhere (e.g. Anderson, 2001; Johnson, 2008; MacKenzie et al., 2006; Pollock et al., 2002).”
The Wildlife Picture Index: monitoring top trophic levels (2010, background): “The CBD is silent on the third question, although Thompson, White & Gowan (1998), Pollock et al. (2002), Buckland et al. (2005), Mace & Baillie (2007) and many others provide helpful comments.”
A Review of Tagging Methods for Estimating Fish Population Size and Components of Mortality (2003, background): “The Jolly-Seber model (Jolly 1965; Seber 1965) and its variations (Cormack 1964; Pollock et al. 1990; Williams et al. 2002) are the primary open population capture-recapture models suitable for fisheries applications.”
Monitoring the distribution of pond‐breeding amphibians when species are detected imperfectly (2005, background): “Non-detection of individuals, populations, and species affects most fields of ecological research and conservation biology and has been identified as a major source of error in monitoring programmes (Yoccoz et al., 2001; Pollock et al., 2002; Ke´ ry and Schmid, 2004; Schmidt, 2004).”
In Defense of Indices: The Case of Bird Surveys (2008, methodology): “Three major methods have been advocated: those with 2 dependent observers (Cook and Jacobson 1979, Nichols et al. 2000), 2 independent observers (Caughley 1974, Henny et al. 1977, Magnasson et al. 1978, Pollock et al. 2002), and several independent observers (Alldredge et al. 2006).”
Butterfly monitoring in Europe: methods, applications and perspectives (2008, methodology): “We therefore suggest to test any longterm changes in detection probabilities using methods to analyse multiple visits as applied for butterflies by Kery and Plattner (2007) and Pellet (2008) or distance-sampling methods (Pollock et al. 2002).”
Accounting for detectability improves estimates of species richness in tropical bat surveys (2011, background): “Thus, comparisons of species richness over temporal or spatial scales will be distorted if based on simple counts of species (Boulinier et al. 1998; Pollock et al. 2002; Kéry & Royle 2008).”