Inferring absence of Houston toads given imperfect detection probabilities

Journal of Wildlife Management

Volumn 70, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 1461-1463

  Jackson, Jacob T ^a   Weckerly, Floyd W ^a   Swannack, Todd M ^b   Forstner, Michael R J ^a  

^a TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Absence; Auditory surveys; Bufo houstonensis; Call surveys; Detection probability; Endangered species; Houston toad; Imperfect detection; Texas

Indexed keywords

DETECTION METHOD; ENDANGERED SPECIES; PROBABILITY; SURVEY; TOAD;

NORTH AMERICA; TEXAS; UNITED STATES;

ANURA; BUFO HOUSTONENSIS;

EID: 33845429203     PISSN: 0022541X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70[1461:IAOHTG]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Bailey, L. L., T. R. Simons, and H. Pollock. 2004. Spatial and temporal variation in detection probability of plethodon salamanders using the robust capture-recapture design. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:14-24.
2. Bridges, A. S., and M. E. Dorcas. 2000. Temporal variation in Anuran calling behaviour: implications for surveys and monitoring programs. Copeia 2000:587-592.
3. Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.
4. Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Second edition. Lawrence Ehlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, USA.
5. Crouch, W. B., and P. W. Paton. 2002. Assessing the use of call surveys to monitor breeding anurans in Rhode Island. Journal of Herpetology 36:185-192.
6. Forstner, M. R. J., and T. M. Swannack. 2004. The Houston toad in context. Final project report submitted to TPWD/USFWS. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin, Texas, USA.
7. Gerard, P. D., D. R. Smith, and G. Weerakhody. 1998. Limits of retrospective power analysis. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:330-338.
8. Kery, M. 2002. Inferring the absence of a species: a case study of snakes. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:330-338.
9. MacKenzie, D. I., J. D. Nichols, G. B. Lachman, S. Droege, J. A. Royle, and C. A. Langtimm. 2002. Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83:2248-2255.
10. Oseen, K. L., and R. J. Wassersug. 2002. Environmental factors influencing calling in sympatric anurans. Oceologica 133:616-625.
11. Pellet, J., and B. R. Schmidt. 2005. Monitoring distributions using call surveys: estimating site occupancy, detection probabilities, and inferring absence. Biological Conservation 123:27-35.
12. Pierce, B., and K. Gutzweiller. 2004. Auditory sampling of frogs: detection efficiency in relation to survey duration. Journal of Herpetology 38:495-500.
13. Schmidt, B. R. 2003. Count data, detection probabilities, and the demography, dynamics, distribution, and decline of amphibians. Comptes Rendus Biologies 326:s119-124.
14. United States Geological Survey. 2005. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center North American amphibian monitoring program protocol. 1 Dec. 〈http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/NAAMP/protocol/index.html〉. Accessed 2006 Mar 21.