Effectiveness of Scat Detection Dogs for Detecting Forest Carnivores
We assessed the detection and accuracy rates of detection dogs trained to locate scats from free-ranging black bears (Ursus americanus), fishers (Martes pennanti), and bobcats (Lynx rufus). During the summers of 2003–2004, 5 detection teams located 1,565 scats (747 putative black bear, 665 putative...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of wildlife management 2007-08, Vol.71 (6), p.2007-2017 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 2017 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 2007 |
container_title | The Journal of wildlife management |
container_volume | 71 |
creator | LONG, ROBERT A DONOVAN, THERESE M MACKAY, PAULA ZIELINSKI, WILLIAM J BUZAS, JEFFREY S |
description | We assessed the detection and accuracy rates of detection dogs trained to locate scats from free-ranging black bears (Ursus americanus), fishers (Martes pennanti), and bobcats (Lynx rufus). During the summers of 2003–2004, 5 detection teams located 1,565 scats (747 putative black bear, 665 putative fisher, and 153 putative bobcat) at 168 survey sites throughout Vermont, USA. Of 347 scats genetically analyzed for species identification, 179 (51.6%) yielded a positive identification, 131 (37.8%) failed to yield DNA information, and 37 (10.7%) yielded DNA but provided no species confirmation. For 70 survey sites where confirmation of a putative target species' scat was not possible, we assessed the probability that ≥1 of the scats collected at the site was deposited by the target species (probability of correct identification; PID). Based on species confirmations or PID values, we detected bears at 57.1% (96) of sites, fishers at 61.3% (103) of sites, and bobcats at 12.5% (21) of sites. We estimated that the mean probability of detecting the target species (when present) during a single visit to a site was 0.86 for black bears, 0.95 for fishers, and 0.40 for bobcats. The probability of detecting black bears was largely unaffected by site- or visit-specific covariates, but the probability of detecting fishers varied by detection team. We found little or no effect of topographic ruggedness, vegetation density, or local weather (e.g., temp, humidity) on detection probability for fishers or black bears (data were insufficient for bobcat analyses). Detection dogs were highly effective at locating scats from forest carnivores and provided an efficient and accurate method for collecting detection–nondetection data on multiple species. |
doi_str_mv | 10.2193/2006-230 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_20691411</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>4496297</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>4496297</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b4715-123b165b55803c9b972125286330db5fa9e114c1e5b18825d6f10cba36e036223</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kFtP3DAQhS3USmxppf6ASo36gPoSOjOOL3ksu7C0oq3KRfBmOcFeZVlisLMU_j2J0oKERJ88nvOd0cxh7D3CDmHJvxCAzInDBpv0X5WTRvWKTQCIclHg-SZ7k9ISgCNqOWGzPe9d3TW3rnUpZcFnx7Xtspnrhm5os1lYpMyH-K_VLrL9EF3qsqmNbXM71G_Za29Xyb37-26x0_29k-lBfvhr_m369TCvCoUiR-IVSlEJoYHXZVUqQhKkJedwUQlvS4dY1OhEhVqTuJAeoa4slw64JOJbbHucex3DzbrfwVw1qXarlW1dWCdDIEssEHvw839BVBoEgeK8Rz89Q5dhHdv-DEO8QE2k4GleHUNK0XlzHZsrG-8NghliN0PsvWFAd0b0T7Ny9y9y5vvZjzkCid7wYTQsUxfio6EoSkml6uV8lJvUubtH2cZLIxVXwpz9nBs8ONqFo_K3GfiPI-9tMHYRm2ROjwmQA2hCVeinFKsmhNa9fMoDQ-ar8w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>234182270</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effectiveness of Scat Detection Dogs for Detecting Forest Carnivores</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><creator>LONG, ROBERT A ; DONOVAN, THERESE M ; MACKAY, PAULA ; ZIELINSKI, WILLIAM J ; BUZAS, JEFFREY S</creator><creatorcontrib>LONG, ROBERT A ; DONOVAN, THERESE M ; MACKAY, PAULA ; ZIELINSKI, WILLIAM J ; BUZAS, JEFFREY S</creatorcontrib><description>We assessed the detection and accuracy rates of detection dogs trained to locate scats from free-ranging black bears (Ursus americanus), fishers (Martes pennanti), and bobcats (Lynx rufus). During the summers of 2003–2004, 5 detection teams located 1,565 scats (747 putative black bear, 665 putative fisher, and 153 putative bobcat) at 168 survey sites throughout Vermont, USA. Of 347 scats genetically analyzed for species identification, 179 (51.6%) yielded a positive identification, 131 (37.8%) failed to yield DNA information, and 37 (10.7%) yielded DNA but provided no species confirmation. For 70 survey sites where confirmation of a putative target species' scat was not possible, we assessed the probability that ≥1 of the scats collected at the site was deposited by the target species (probability of correct identification; PID). Based on species confirmations or PID values, we detected bears at 57.1% (96) of sites, fishers at 61.3% (103) of sites, and bobcats at 12.5% (21) of sites. We estimated that the mean probability of detecting the target species (when present) during a single visit to a site was 0.86 for black bears, 0.95 for fishers, and 0.40 for bobcats. The probability of detecting black bears was largely unaffected by site- or visit-specific covariates, but the probability of detecting fishers varied by detection team. We found little or no effect of topographic ruggedness, vegetation density, or local weather (e.g., temp, humidity) on detection probability for fishers or black bears (data were insufficient for bobcat analyses). Detection dogs were highly effective at locating scats from forest carnivores and provided an efficient and accurate method for collecting detection–nondetection data on multiple species.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-541X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1937-2817</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2193/2006-230</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JWMAA9</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: The Wildlife Society</publisher><subject>Bears ; black bear ; Black bears ; bobcat ; Bobcats ; Carnivora ; Carnivores ; Charitable foundations ; Deoxyribonucleic acid ; detection ; detection dog ; DNA ; Dogs ; Environmental protection ; feces ; fisher ; forests ; Lynx rufus ; Martes ; Martes pennanti ; Parametric models ; Polls & surveys ; probability analysis ; R&D ; Research & development ; scat ; Scat singing ; States ; Studies ; survey ; surveys ; Techniques and Technology Articles ; Techniques and Technology s ; Topographic surveys ; Ursus americanus ; Vermont ; Wildlife conservation ; wildlife habitats ; Wildlife management ; working animals</subject><ispartof>The Journal of wildlife management, 2007-08, Vol.71 (6), p.2007-2017</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2007 The Wildlife Society</rights><rights>2007 The Wildlife Society</rights><rights>Copyright Alliance Communications Group, A Division of Allen Press, Inc. Aug 2007</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b4715-123b165b55803c9b972125286330db5fa9e114c1e5b18825d6f10cba36e036223</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b4715-123b165b55803c9b972125286330db5fa9e114c1e5b18825d6f10cba36e036223</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4496297$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/4496297$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,800,1412,27905,27906,45555,45556,57998,58231</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>LONG, ROBERT A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DONOVAN, THERESE M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MACKAY, PAULA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ZIELINSKI, WILLIAM J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BUZAS, JEFFREY S</creatorcontrib><title>Effectiveness of Scat Detection Dogs for Detecting Forest Carnivores</title><title>The Journal of wildlife management</title><description>We assessed the detection and accuracy rates of detection dogs trained to locate scats from free-ranging black bears (Ursus americanus), fishers (Martes pennanti), and bobcats (Lynx rufus). During the summers of 2003–2004, 5 detection teams located 1,565 scats (747 putative black bear, 665 putative fisher, and 153 putative bobcat) at 168 survey sites throughout Vermont, USA. Of 347 scats genetically analyzed for species identification, 179 (51.6%) yielded a positive identification, 131 (37.8%) failed to yield DNA information, and 37 (10.7%) yielded DNA but provided no species confirmation. For 70 survey sites where confirmation of a putative target species' scat was not possible, we assessed the probability that ≥1 of the scats collected at the site was deposited by the target species (probability of correct identification; PID). Based on species confirmations or PID values, we detected bears at 57.1% (96) of sites, fishers at 61.3% (103) of sites, and bobcats at 12.5% (21) of sites. We estimated that the mean probability of detecting the target species (when present) during a single visit to a site was 0.86 for black bears, 0.95 for fishers, and 0.40 for bobcats. The probability of detecting black bears was largely unaffected by site- or visit-specific covariates, but the probability of detecting fishers varied by detection team. We found little or no effect of topographic ruggedness, vegetation density, or local weather (e.g., temp, humidity) on detection probability for fishers or black bears (data were insufficient for bobcat analyses). Detection dogs were highly effective at locating scats from forest carnivores and provided an efficient and accurate method for collecting detection–nondetection data on multiple species.</description><subject>Bears</subject><subject>black bear</subject><subject>Black bears</subject><subject>bobcat</subject><subject>Bobcats</subject><subject>Carnivora</subject><subject>Carnivores</subject><subject>Charitable foundations</subject><subject>Deoxyribonucleic acid</subject><subject>detection</subject><subject>detection dog</subject><subject>DNA</subject><subject>Dogs</subject><subject>Environmental protection</subject><subject>feces</subject><subject>fisher</subject><subject>forests</subject><subject>Lynx rufus</subject><subject>Martes</subject><subject>Martes pennanti</subject><subject>Parametric models</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>probability analysis</subject><subject>R&D</subject><subject>Research & development</subject><subject>scat</subject><subject>Scat singing</subject><subject>States</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>survey</subject><subject>surveys</subject><subject>Techniques and Technology Articles</subject><subject>Techniques and Technology s</subject><subject>Topographic surveys</subject><subject>Ursus americanus</subject><subject>Vermont</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><subject>wildlife habitats</subject><subject>Wildlife management</subject><subject>working animals</subject><issn>0022-541X</issn><issn>1937-2817</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kFtP3DAQhS3USmxppf6ASo36gPoSOjOOL3ksu7C0oq3KRfBmOcFeZVlisLMU_j2J0oKERJ88nvOd0cxh7D3CDmHJvxCAzInDBpv0X5WTRvWKTQCIclHg-SZ7k9ISgCNqOWGzPe9d3TW3rnUpZcFnx7Xtspnrhm5os1lYpMyH-K_VLrL9EF3qsqmNbXM71G_Za29Xyb37-26x0_29k-lBfvhr_m369TCvCoUiR-IVSlEJoYHXZVUqQhKkJedwUQlvS4dY1OhEhVqTuJAeoa4slw64JOJbbHucex3DzbrfwVw1qXarlW1dWCdDIEssEHvw839BVBoEgeK8Rz89Q5dhHdv-DEO8QE2k4GleHUNK0XlzHZsrG-8NghliN0PsvWFAd0b0T7Ny9y9y5vvZjzkCid7wYTQsUxfio6EoSkml6uV8lJvUubtH2cZLIxVXwpz9nBs8ONqFo_K3GfiPI-9tMHYRm2ROjwmQA2hCVeinFKsmhNa9fMoDQ-ar8w</recordid><startdate>200708</startdate><enddate>200708</enddate><creator>LONG, ROBERT A</creator><creator>DONOVAN, THERESE M</creator><creator>MACKAY, PAULA</creator><creator>ZIELINSKI, WILLIAM J</creator><creator>BUZAS, JEFFREY S</creator><general>The Wildlife Society</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>R05</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200708</creationdate><title>Effectiveness of Scat Detection Dogs for Detecting Forest Carnivores</title><author>LONG, ROBERT A ; DONOVAN, THERESE M ; MACKAY, PAULA ; ZIELINSKI, WILLIAM J ; BUZAS, JEFFREY S</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b4715-123b165b55803c9b972125286330db5fa9e114c1e5b18825d6f10cba36e036223</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Bears</topic><topic>black bear</topic><topic>Black bears</topic><topic>bobcat</topic><topic>Bobcats</topic><topic>Carnivora</topic><topic>Carnivores</topic><topic>Charitable foundations</topic><topic>Deoxyribonucleic acid</topic><topic>detection</topic><topic>detection dog</topic><topic>DNA</topic><topic>Dogs</topic><topic>Environmental protection</topic><topic>feces</topic><topic>fisher</topic><topic>forests</topic><topic>Lynx rufus</topic><topic>Martes</topic><topic>Martes pennanti</topic><topic>Parametric models</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>probability analysis</topic><topic>R&D</topic><topic>Research & development</topic><topic>scat</topic><topic>Scat singing</topic><topic>States</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>survey</topic><topic>surveys</topic><topic>Techniques and Technology Articles</topic><topic>Techniques and Technology s</topic><topic>Topographic surveys</topic><topic>Ursus americanus</topic><topic>Vermont</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><topic>wildlife habitats</topic><topic>Wildlife management</topic><topic>working animals</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>LONG, ROBERT A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DONOVAN, THERESE M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MACKAY, PAULA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ZIELINSKI, WILLIAM J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BUZAS, JEFFREY S</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>University of Michigan</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>The Journal of wildlife management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>LONG, ROBERT A</au><au>DONOVAN, THERESE M</au><au>MACKAY, PAULA</au><au>ZIELINSKI, WILLIAM J</au><au>BUZAS, JEFFREY S</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effectiveness of Scat Detection Dogs for Detecting Forest Carnivores</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of wildlife management</jtitle><date>2007-08</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>71</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>2007</spage><epage>2017</epage><pages>2007-2017</pages><issn>0022-541X</issn><eissn>1937-2817</eissn><coden>JWMAA9</coden><abstract>We assessed the detection and accuracy rates of detection dogs trained to locate scats from free-ranging black bears (Ursus americanus), fishers (Martes pennanti), and bobcats (Lynx rufus). During the summers of 2003–2004, 5 detection teams located 1,565 scats (747 putative black bear, 665 putative fisher, and 153 putative bobcat) at 168 survey sites throughout Vermont, USA. Of 347 scats genetically analyzed for species identification, 179 (51.6%) yielded a positive identification, 131 (37.8%) failed to yield DNA information, and 37 (10.7%) yielded DNA but provided no species confirmation. For 70 survey sites where confirmation of a putative target species' scat was not possible, we assessed the probability that ≥1 of the scats collected at the site was deposited by the target species (probability of correct identification; PID). Based on species confirmations or PID values, we detected bears at 57.1% (96) of sites, fishers at 61.3% (103) of sites, and bobcats at 12.5% (21) of sites. We estimated that the mean probability of detecting the target species (when present) during a single visit to a site was 0.86 for black bears, 0.95 for fishers, and 0.40 for bobcats. The probability of detecting black bears was largely unaffected by site- or visit-specific covariates, but the probability of detecting fishers varied by detection team. We found little or no effect of topographic ruggedness, vegetation density, or local weather (e.g., temp, humidity) on detection probability for fishers or black bears (data were insufficient for bobcat analyses). Detection dogs were highly effective at locating scats from forest carnivores and provided an efficient and accurate method for collecting detection–nondetection data on multiple species.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>The Wildlife Society</pub><doi>10.2193/2006-230</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-541X |
ispartof | The Journal of wildlife management, 2007-08, Vol.71 (6), p.2007-2017 |
issn | 0022-541X 1937-2817 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_20691411 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Jstor Complete Legacy |
subjects | Bears black bear Black bears bobcat Bobcats Carnivora Carnivores Charitable foundations Deoxyribonucleic acid detection detection dog DNA Dogs Environmental protection feces fisher forests Lynx rufus Martes Martes pennanti Parametric models Polls & surveys probability analysis R&D Research & development scat Scat singing States Studies survey surveys Techniques and Technology Articles Techniques and Technology s Topographic surveys Ursus americanus Vermont Wildlife conservation wildlife habitats Wildlife management working animals |
title | Effectiveness of Scat Detection Dogs for Detecting Forest Carnivores |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T03%3A59%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effectiveness%20of%20Scat%20Detection%20Dogs%20for%20Detecting%20Forest%20Carnivores&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20wildlife%20management&rft.au=LONG,%20ROBERT%20A&rft.date=2007-08&rft.volume=71&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=2007&rft.epage=2017&rft.pages=2007-2017&rft.issn=0022-541X&rft.eissn=1937-2817&rft.coden=JWMAA9&rft_id=info:doi/10.2193/2006-230&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E4496297%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=234182270&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=4496297&rfr_iscdi=true |