Variation in herpetofauna detection probabilities: implications for study design

Population monitoring is fundamental for informing management decisions aimed at reducing the rapid rate of global biodiversity decline. Herpetofauna are experiencing declines worldwide and include species that are challenging to monitor. Raw counts and associated metrics such as richness indices ar...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Environmental monitoring and assessment 2021-10, Vol.193 (10), p.658-658, Article 658
Hauptverfasser: Baumgardt, Jeremy A., Morrison, Michael L., Brennan, Leonard A., Thornley, Madeleine, Campbell, Tyler A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 658
container_issue 10
container_start_page 658
container_title Environmental monitoring and assessment
container_volume 193
creator Baumgardt, Jeremy A.
Morrison, Michael L.
Brennan, Leonard A.
Thornley, Madeleine
Campbell, Tyler A.
description Population monitoring is fundamental for informing management decisions aimed at reducing the rapid rate of global biodiversity decline. Herpetofauna are experiencing declines worldwide and include species that are challenging to monitor. Raw counts and associated metrics such as richness indices are common for monitoring populations of herpetofauna; however, these methods are susceptible to bias as they fail to account for varying detection probabilities. Our goal was to develop a program for efficiently monitoring herpetofauna in southern Texas. Our objectives were to (1) estimate detection probabilities in an occupancy modeling framework using trap arrays for a diverse group of herpetofauna and (2) to evaluate the relative effectiveness of funnel traps, pitfall traps, and cover boards. We collected data with 36 arrays at 2 study sites in 2015 and 2016, for 2105 array-days resulting in 4839 detections of 51 species. We modeled occupancy for 21 species and found support for the hypothesis that detection probability varied over our sampling duration for 10 species and with rainfall for 10 species. For herpetofauna in our study, we found 14 and 12 species were most efficiently captured with funnel traps and pitfall traps, respectively, and no species were most efficiently captured with cover boards. Our results show that using methods that do not account for variations in detection probability are highly subject to bias unless the likelihood of false absences is minimized with exceptionally long capture durations. For monitoring herpetofauna in southern Texas, we recommend using arrays with funnel and pitfall traps and an analytical method such as occupancy modeling that accounts for variation in detection.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10661-021-09424-0
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8448696</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2573636623</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-c15211ee7ac0a2e51e1b56eef0af0d4d4456d0efb1aeff7cb992fad6021b07e73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kTtvFDEUhS0EIpvAH6BAI9HQDFy_YwqkKIKAFAkKoLU8nuuNo1l7sGeQ8u9xdkN4FBSWi_ud43t8CHlG4RUF0K8rBaVoD6wdI5jo4QHZUKl5z4w0D8kGqNK94sockeNarwHAaGEekyMuJOeK6Q35_M2V6JaYUxdTd4VlxiUHtybXjbig30_mkgc3xCkuEeubLu7mKfq9qHYhl64u63jT-Bq36Ql5FNxU8endfUK-vn_35fxDf_np4uP52WXvhRZL76lklCJq58ExlBTpIBViABdgFKMQUo2AYaAOQ9B-MIYFN6oWdgCNmp-QtwffeR12OHpMS3GTnUvcuXJjs4v270mKV3abf9hTIU6VUc3g5Z1Byd9XrIvdxepxmlzCvFbLpBbcgFSmoS_-Qa_zWlKLd0vx9sOK8UaxA-VLrrVguF-Ggr0tzB4Ksy2D3RdmoYme_xnjXvKroQbwA1DbKG2x_H77P7Y_AZJAo7U</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2573636623</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Variation in herpetofauna detection probabilities: implications for study design</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink (Online service)</source><creator>Baumgardt, Jeremy A. ; Morrison, Michael L. ; Brennan, Leonard A. ; Thornley, Madeleine ; Campbell, Tyler A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Baumgardt, Jeremy A. ; Morrison, Michael L. ; Brennan, Leonard A. ; Thornley, Madeleine ; Campbell, Tyler A.</creatorcontrib><description>Population monitoring is fundamental for informing management decisions aimed at reducing the rapid rate of global biodiversity decline. Herpetofauna are experiencing declines worldwide and include species that are challenging to monitor. Raw counts and associated metrics such as richness indices are common for monitoring populations of herpetofauna; however, these methods are susceptible to bias as they fail to account for varying detection probabilities. Our goal was to develop a program for efficiently monitoring herpetofauna in southern Texas. Our objectives were to (1) estimate detection probabilities in an occupancy modeling framework using trap arrays for a diverse group of herpetofauna and (2) to evaluate the relative effectiveness of funnel traps, pitfall traps, and cover boards. We collected data with 36 arrays at 2 study sites in 2015 and 2016, for 2105 array-days resulting in 4839 detections of 51 species. We modeled occupancy for 21 species and found support for the hypothesis that detection probability varied over our sampling duration for 10 species and with rainfall for 10 species. For herpetofauna in our study, we found 14 and 12 species were most efficiently captured with funnel traps and pitfall traps, respectively, and no species were most efficiently captured with cover boards. Our results show that using methods that do not account for variations in detection probability are highly subject to bias unless the likelihood of false absences is minimized with exceptionally long capture durations. For monitoring herpetofauna in southern Texas, we recommend using arrays with funnel and pitfall traps and an analytical method such as occupancy modeling that accounts for variation in detection.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0167-6369</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-2959</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10661-021-09424-0</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34533627</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Amphibians ; Analytical methods ; Animals ; Arrays ; Atmospheric Protection/Air Quality Control/Air Pollution ; Bias ; Biodiversity ; Biological surveys ; Conservation of Natural Resources ; Detection ; Earth and Environmental Science ; Ecology ; Ecotoxicology ; Environment ; Environmental Management ; Environmental Monitoring ; Environmental science ; Herpetofauna ; Modelling ; Monitoring ; Monitoring/Environmental Analysis ; Occupancy ; Pitfall traps ; Population decline ; Population studies ; Probability ; Probability theory ; Rain ; Rainfall ; Samplers ; Small mammals ; Species ; Variation</subject><ispartof>Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2021-10, Vol.193 (10), p.658-658, Article 658</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2021</rights><rights>2021. The Author(s).</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-c15211ee7ac0a2e51e1b56eef0af0d4d4456d0efb1aeff7cb992fad6021b07e73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-c15211ee7ac0a2e51e1b56eef0af0d4d4456d0efb1aeff7cb992fad6021b07e73</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2779-6822</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10661-021-09424-0$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10661-021-09424-0$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34533627$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Baumgardt, Jeremy A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morrison, Michael L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brennan, Leonard A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thornley, Madeleine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Campbell, Tyler A.</creatorcontrib><title>Variation in herpetofauna detection probabilities: implications for study design</title><title>Environmental monitoring and assessment</title><addtitle>Environ Monit Assess</addtitle><addtitle>Environ Monit Assess</addtitle><description>Population monitoring is fundamental for informing management decisions aimed at reducing the rapid rate of global biodiversity decline. Herpetofauna are experiencing declines worldwide and include species that are challenging to monitor. Raw counts and associated metrics such as richness indices are common for monitoring populations of herpetofauna; however, these methods are susceptible to bias as they fail to account for varying detection probabilities. Our goal was to develop a program for efficiently monitoring herpetofauna in southern Texas. Our objectives were to (1) estimate detection probabilities in an occupancy modeling framework using trap arrays for a diverse group of herpetofauna and (2) to evaluate the relative effectiveness of funnel traps, pitfall traps, and cover boards. We collected data with 36 arrays at 2 study sites in 2015 and 2016, for 2105 array-days resulting in 4839 detections of 51 species. We modeled occupancy for 21 species and found support for the hypothesis that detection probability varied over our sampling duration for 10 species and with rainfall for 10 species. For herpetofauna in our study, we found 14 and 12 species were most efficiently captured with funnel traps and pitfall traps, respectively, and no species were most efficiently captured with cover boards. Our results show that using methods that do not account for variations in detection probability are highly subject to bias unless the likelihood of false absences is minimized with exceptionally long capture durations. For monitoring herpetofauna in southern Texas, we recommend using arrays with funnel and pitfall traps and an analytical method such as occupancy modeling that accounts for variation in detection.</description><subject>Amphibians</subject><subject>Analytical methods</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Arrays</subject><subject>Atmospheric Protection/Air Quality Control/Air Pollution</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Biological surveys</subject><subject>Conservation of Natural Resources</subject><subject>Detection</subject><subject>Earth and Environmental Science</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Ecotoxicology</subject><subject>Environment</subject><subject>Environmental Management</subject><subject>Environmental Monitoring</subject><subject>Environmental science</subject><subject>Herpetofauna</subject><subject>Modelling</subject><subject>Monitoring</subject><subject>Monitoring/Environmental Analysis</subject><subject>Occupancy</subject><subject>Pitfall traps</subject><subject>Population decline</subject><subject>Population studies</subject><subject>Probability</subject><subject>Probability theory</subject><subject>Rain</subject><subject>Rainfall</subject><subject>Samplers</subject><subject>Small mammals</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>Variation</subject><issn>0167-6369</issn><issn>1573-2959</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kTtvFDEUhS0EIpvAH6BAI9HQDFy_YwqkKIKAFAkKoLU8nuuNo1l7sGeQ8u9xdkN4FBSWi_ud43t8CHlG4RUF0K8rBaVoD6wdI5jo4QHZUKl5z4w0D8kGqNK94sockeNarwHAaGEekyMuJOeK6Q35_M2V6JaYUxdTd4VlxiUHtybXjbig30_mkgc3xCkuEeubLu7mKfq9qHYhl64u63jT-Bq36Ql5FNxU8endfUK-vn_35fxDf_np4uP52WXvhRZL76lklCJq58ExlBTpIBViABdgFKMQUo2AYaAOQ9B-MIYFN6oWdgCNmp-QtwffeR12OHpMS3GTnUvcuXJjs4v270mKV3abf9hTIU6VUc3g5Z1Byd9XrIvdxepxmlzCvFbLpBbcgFSmoS_-Qa_zWlKLd0vx9sOK8UaxA-VLrrVguF-Ggr0tzB4Ksy2D3RdmoYme_xnjXvKroQbwA1DbKG2x_H77P7Y_AZJAo7U</recordid><startdate>20211001</startdate><enddate>20211001</enddate><creator>Baumgardt, Jeremy A.</creator><creator>Morrison, Michael L.</creator><creator>Brennan, Leonard A.</creator><creator>Thornley, Madeleine</creator><creator>Campbell, Tyler A.</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2779-6822</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20211001</creationdate><title>Variation in herpetofauna detection probabilities: implications for study design</title><author>Baumgardt, Jeremy A. ; Morrison, Michael L. ; Brennan, Leonard A. ; Thornley, Madeleine ; Campbell, Tyler A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-c15211ee7ac0a2e51e1b56eef0af0d4d4456d0efb1aeff7cb992fad6021b07e73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Amphibians</topic><topic>Analytical methods</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Arrays</topic><topic>Atmospheric Protection/Air Quality Control/Air Pollution</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Biological surveys</topic><topic>Conservation of Natural Resources</topic><topic>Detection</topic><topic>Earth and Environmental Science</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Ecotoxicology</topic><topic>Environment</topic><topic>Environmental Management</topic><topic>Environmental Monitoring</topic><topic>Environmental science</topic><topic>Herpetofauna</topic><topic>Modelling</topic><topic>Monitoring</topic><topic>Monitoring/Environmental Analysis</topic><topic>Occupancy</topic><topic>Pitfall traps</topic><topic>Population decline</topic><topic>Population studies</topic><topic>Probability</topic><topic>Probability theory</topic><topic>Rain</topic><topic>Rainfall</topic><topic>Samplers</topic><topic>Small mammals</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>Variation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Baumgardt, Jeremy A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morrison, Michael L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brennan, Leonard A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thornley, Madeleine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Campbell, Tyler A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Aqualine</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>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI-INFORM Complete</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest - Health &amp; Medical Complete保健、医学与药学数据库</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database (Proquest)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution &amp; Environmental Quality</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>ProQuest Science Journals</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</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>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Environmental monitoring and assessment</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Baumgardt, Jeremy A.</au><au>Morrison, Michael L.</au><au>Brennan, Leonard A.</au><au>Thornley, Madeleine</au><au>Campbell, Tyler A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Variation in herpetofauna detection probabilities: implications for study design</atitle><jtitle>Environmental monitoring and assessment</jtitle><stitle>Environ Monit Assess</stitle><addtitle>Environ Monit Assess</addtitle><date>2021-10-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>193</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>658</spage><epage>658</epage><pages>658-658</pages><artnum>658</artnum><issn>0167-6369</issn><eissn>1573-2959</eissn><abstract>Population monitoring is fundamental for informing management decisions aimed at reducing the rapid rate of global biodiversity decline. Herpetofauna are experiencing declines worldwide and include species that are challenging to monitor. Raw counts and associated metrics such as richness indices are common for monitoring populations of herpetofauna; however, these methods are susceptible to bias as they fail to account for varying detection probabilities. Our goal was to develop a program for efficiently monitoring herpetofauna in southern Texas. Our objectives were to (1) estimate detection probabilities in an occupancy modeling framework using trap arrays for a diverse group of herpetofauna and (2) to evaluate the relative effectiveness of funnel traps, pitfall traps, and cover boards. We collected data with 36 arrays at 2 study sites in 2015 and 2016, for 2105 array-days resulting in 4839 detections of 51 species. We modeled occupancy for 21 species and found support for the hypothesis that detection probability varied over our sampling duration for 10 species and with rainfall for 10 species. For herpetofauna in our study, we found 14 and 12 species were most efficiently captured with funnel traps and pitfall traps, respectively, and no species were most efficiently captured with cover boards. Our results show that using methods that do not account for variations in detection probability are highly subject to bias unless the likelihood of false absences is minimized with exceptionally long capture durations. For monitoring herpetofauna in southern Texas, we recommend using arrays with funnel and pitfall traps and an analytical method such as occupancy modeling that accounts for variation in detection.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><pmid>34533627</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10661-021-09424-0</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2779-6822</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0167-6369
ispartof Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2021-10, Vol.193 (10), p.658-658, Article 658
issn 0167-6369
1573-2959
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8448696
source MEDLINE; SpringerLink (Online service)
subjects Amphibians
Analytical methods
Animals
Arrays
Atmospheric Protection/Air Quality Control/Air Pollution
Bias
Biodiversity
Biological surveys
Conservation of Natural Resources
Detection
Earth and Environmental Science
Ecology
Ecotoxicology
Environment
Environmental Management
Environmental Monitoring
Environmental science
Herpetofauna
Modelling
Monitoring
Monitoring/Environmental Analysis
Occupancy
Pitfall traps
Population decline
Population studies
Probability
Probability theory
Rain
Rainfall
Samplers
Small mammals
Species
Variation
title Variation in herpetofauna detection probabilities: implications for study design
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T08%3A44%3A01IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Variation%20in%20herpetofauna%20detection%20probabilities:%20implications%20for%20study%20design&rft.jtitle=Environmental%20monitoring%20and%20assessment&rft.au=Baumgardt,%20Jeremy%20A.&rft.date=2021-10-01&rft.volume=193&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=658&rft.epage=658&rft.pages=658-658&rft.artnum=658&rft.issn=0167-6369&rft.eissn=1573-2959&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10661-021-09424-0&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2573636623%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2573636623&rft_id=info:pmid/34533627&rfr_iscdi=true