Journal of Wildlife Management · 2007 · 64 citations · 35 references
Life SciencesEcologyZoologyHerpetologyOrnithologyPopulation EcologyAmphibian BiologyPopulation Abundance MonitoringWildlife Survey MethodsAmphibian Population MonitoringCall Count SurveysMethodological Error RatesObserver BiasRecordingsSpecies Abundance EstimationWildlife MonitoringWildlife Population Monitoring
ABSTRACT Amphibian monitoring programs rarely question the quality of data obtained by observers and often ignore observer bias. In order to test for bias in amphibian call surveys, we sampled 29 clusters of wetlands from the Rainwater Basin, Nebraska, USA, totaling 228 functionally connected wetlands. Sampling consisted of 3‐minute stops where volunteers recorded species heard and made digital recordings. Based on 627 samples, we examined 3 types of observer bias: omission, false inclusion (commission), and incorrect identification. Misidentification rates ranged from 4.2% to 18.3%. Relatively high and unquantified error rates can negatively affect the ability of monitoring programs to accurately detect the population or abundance trends for which most were designed.
35
ESTIMATING SITE OCCUPANCY RATES WHEN DETECTION PROBABILITIES ARE LESS THAN ONE
Darryl I. MacKenzie, James D. Nichols, Gideon B. Lachman et al. · Ecology · 2002 · 4.4K citations
Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Amphibians.
Jeffrey R. Parmelee, W. Ronald Heyer, Maureen A. Donnelly et al. · Systematic Biology · 1995 · 1.3K citations
Life Sciences, Biology, Ecology +14
Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Amphibians
John D. Krenz, W. Ronald Heyer, Maureen A. Donnelly et al. · Copeia · 1995 · 988 citations
Life Sciences, Biology, Ecology +14
Detecting Critical Scales in Fragmented Landscapes
Timothy H. Keitt, Dean L. Urban, Bruce T. Milne · Conservation Ecology · 1997 · 587 citations · Full text