Literature DB >> 14558460

Count data, detection probabilities, and the demography, dynamics, distribution, and decline of amphibians.

Benedikt R Schmidt1.   

Abstract

The evidence for amphibian population declines is based on count data that were not adjusted for detection probabilities. Such data are not reliable even when collected using standard methods. The formula C = Np (where C is a count, N the true parameter value, and p is a detection probability) relates count data to demography, population size, or distributions. With unadjusted count data, one assumes a linear relationship between C and N and that p is constant. These assumptions are unlikely to be met in studies of amphibian populations. Amphibian population data should be based on methods that account for detection probabilities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14558460     DOI: 10.1016/s1631-0691(03)00048-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  C R Biol        ISSN: 1631-0691            Impact factor:   1.583


  16 in total

1.  Forecasting changes in amphibian biodiversity: aiming at a moving target.

Authors:  James P Collins; Tim Halliday
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2005-02-28       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  Artificial wetlands as tools for frog conservation: stability and variability of reproduction characteristics in Sahara frog populations in Tunisian man-made lakes.

Authors:  Meher Bellakhal; André Neveu; Mouna Fertouna-Bellakhal; Lotfi Aleya
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2017-09-27       Impact factor: 4.223

3.  Leaf litterbag sampling for larval plethodontid salamander populations in Georgia.

Authors:  Brooke L Talley; Thomas L Crisman
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2006-12-16       Impact factor: 2.513

4.  Trends in amphibian occupancy in the United States.

Authors:  Michael J Adams; David A W Miller; Erin Muths; Paul Stephen Corn; Evan H Campbell Grant; Larissa L Bailey; Gary M Fellers; Robert N Fisher; Walter J Sadinski; Hardin Waddle; Susan C Walls
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-05-22       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Pesticide mixtures, endocrine disruption, and amphibian declines: are we underestimating the impact?

Authors:  Tyrone B Hayes; Paola Case; Sarah Chui; Duc Chung; Cathryn Haeffele; Kelly Haston; Melissa Lee; Vien Phoung Mai; Youssra Marjuoa; John Parker; Mable Tsui
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 9.031

6.  Population dynamics of the critically endangered golden lancehead pitviper, Bothrops insularis: stability or decline?

Authors:  Murilo Guimarães; Roberto Munguía-Steyer; Paul F Doherty; Marcio Martins; Ricardo J Sawaya
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-04-22       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  The risks of learning: confounding detection and demographic trend when using count-based indices for population monitoring.

Authors:  Vincenzo Gervasi; Henrik Brøseth; Olivier Gimenez; Erlend B Nilsen; John D C Linnell
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2014-12-02       Impact factor: 2.912

8.  Population recovery following decline in an endangered stream-breeding frog (Mixophyes fleayi) from subtropical Australia.

Authors:  David Alan Newell; Ross Lindsay Goldingay; Lyndon Owen Brooks
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-13       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  One step forward: contrasting the effects of Toe clipping and PIT tagging on frog survival and recapture probability.

Authors:  Murilo Guimarães; Décio T Corrêa; Sérgio S Filho; Thiago A L Oliveira; Paul F Doherty; Ricardo J Sawaya
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2014-03-24       Impact factor: 2.912

10.  Indicators of the statuses of amphibian populations and their potential for exposure to atrazine in four midwestern U.S. conservation areas.

Authors:  Walt Sadinski; Mark Roth; Tyrone Hayes; Perry Jones; Alisa Gallant
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-12       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.