Detecting population declines over large areas with presence-absence, time-to-encounter, and count survey methods

Conservation Biology

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 882-892

  Pollock, Jacob F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Colaptes auratus; Data limitation; Monitoring design; North American Breeding Bird Survey; Northern Flicker; Rare species; Simulation model; Synchronous decline

Indexed keywords

BIRD; CONSERVATION; POPULATION DECLINE; POPULATION DYNAMICS; RARE SPECIES; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIRD; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; METHODOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANIMALS; BIRDS; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL; POPULATION DYNAMICS;

NORTH AMERICA;

AVES; COLAPTES AURATUS;

EID: 33745120818     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00342.x     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Adams P. B. M. J. Bowers H. E. Fish T. E. Laidig, and K. R. Silberberg. 1999. Historical and current presence-absence of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in the central California coast evolutionarily significant unit. Southwest Fisheries Science Center administrative report SC-99-02. National Marine Fisheries Service, Tiburon, California.
2. Boyce M. S. P. R. Vernier S. E. Nielsen, and F. K. A. Schmiegelow. 2002. Evaluating resource selection functions. Ecological Modeling 157 : 281 300.
3. Brownell N. F. W. M. Kier, and M. L. Reber. 1999. Historical and current presence and absence of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, in the northern California portion of the southern Oregon-northern California evolutionary significant unit. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center and Kier Associates, Sausalito, California.
4. Fielding A. H., and J. F. Bell. 1997. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environmental Conservation 24 : 38 49.
5. Gaston K. J. R. L. Pressey, and C. R. Margules. 2002. Persistence and vulnerability: retaining biodiversity in the landscape and in protected areas. Journal of Biosciences 27 ( supplement 2 361 384.
6. Gibbs J. P. 2000. Variability estimates for local plant and animal populations. U.S. Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland. Available from http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/ ( accessed May 2000).
7. Green R. H., and R. C. Young. 1993. Sampling to detect rare species. Ecological Applications 3 : 351 356.
8. Hanski I. 1997. Predictive and practical metapopulation models: the incidence function approach. Pages 21 45 in D. Tilman and P. Kareiva, editors. Spatial ecology: the role of space in population dynamics and interspecific interactions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey
9. Koenig W. D. 1999. Spatial autocorrelation of ecological phenomena. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 14 : 22 26.
10. Link W. A., and J. R. Sauer. 1997. New approaches to the analysis of population trends in land birds: comment. Ecology 78 : 2632 2634.
11. Manel S. H. C. Williams, and S. J. Ormerod. 2001. Evaluating presence-absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence. Journal of Applied Ecology 38 : 921 931.
12. Manley P. N. W. J. Zielinski M. D. Schlesinger, and S. R. Mori. 2004. Evaluation of a multiple-species approach to monitoring species at the ecoregional scale. Ecological Applications 14 : 296 310.
13. Manly B. F. J. L. L. McDonald, and D. L. Thomas. 1993. Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies. Chapman & Hall, London.
14. Margules C. R., and R. L. Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405 : 243 253.
15. Morris W. F., and D. F. Doak. 2002. Quantitative conservation biology: the theory and practice of population viability analysis. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
16. Morris W. F. D. F. Doak M. Groom P. Kareiva J. Fieberg L. Gerber P. Murphy, and D. Thomson. 1999. A practical handbook for population viability analysis. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.
17. McNemar Q. 1947. Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika 12 : 153 157.
18. Pardieck K. 2001. Instructions for conducting the North American Breeding Bird Survey. U.S. Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland
19. Pressey R. L. H. P. Possingham, and C. R. Margules. 1996. Optimality in reserve selection algorithms: when does it matter and how much Biological Conservation 76 : 259 267.
20. Royle J. A., and J. D. Nichols. 2003. Estimating abundance from repeated presence-absence data or point counts. Ecology 84 : 777 790.
21. Sauer J. R. J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results and analysis 1966-2004. Version 2005.2. U.S. Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland.
22. Shaffer H. B. R. N. Fisher, and C. Davidson. 1998. The role of natural history collections in documenting species declines. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13 : 27 30.
23. Sokal R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. 3rd edition. W.H. Freeman, New York.
24. Strayer D. L. 1999. Statistical power of presence-absence data to detect population declines. Conservation Biology 13 : 1034 1038.