Accounting for Imperfect Detection in Ecology: A Quantitative Review. Kellner, undefined & Kenneth F. AND Swihart, undefined PLoS ONE, 9(10):e111436, Public Library of Science, 10, 2014. ![Accounting for Imperfect Detection in Ecology: A Quantitative Review [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex Detection in studies of species abundance and distribution is often imperfect. Assuming perfect detection introduces bias into estimation that can weaken inference upon which understanding and policy are based. Despite availability of numerous methods designed to address this assumption, many refereed papers in ecology fail to account for non-detection error. We conducted a quantitative literature review of 537 ecological articles to measure the degree to which studies of different taxa, at various scales, and over time have accounted for imperfect detection. Overall, just 23% of articles accounted for imperfect detection. The probability that an article incorporated imperfect detection increased with time and varied among taxa studied; studies of vertebrates were more likely to incorporate imperfect detection. Among articles that reported detection probability, 70% contained per-survey estimates of detection that were less than 0.5. For articles in which constancy of detection was tested, 86% reported significant variation. We hope that our findings prompt more ecologists to consider carefully the detection process when designing studies and analyzing results, especially for sub-disciplines where incorporation of imperfect detection in study design and analysis so far has been lacking.
@ARTICLE{Kellner2014,
author = {Kellner, , Kenneth F. AND Swihart, , Robert K.},
title = {Accounting for Imperfect Detection in Ecology: A Quantitative Review},
journal = {PLoS ONE},
year = {2014},
volume = {9},
pages = {e111436},
number = {10},
month = {10},
abstract = {<p>Detection in studies of species abundance and distribution is often
imperfect. Assuming perfect detection introduces bias into estimation
that can weaken inference upon which understanding and policy are
based. Despite availability of numerous methods designed to address
this assumption, many refereed papers in ecology fail to account
for non-detection error. We conducted a quantitative literature review
of 537 ecological articles to measure the degree to which studies
of different taxa, at various scales, and over time have accounted
for imperfect detection. Overall, just 23% of articles accounted
for imperfect detection. The probability that an article incorporated
imperfect detection increased with time and varied among taxa studied;
studies of vertebrates were more likely to incorporate imperfect
detection. Among articles that reported detection probability, 70%
contained per-survey estimates of detection that were less than 0.5.
For articles in which constancy of detection was tested, 86% reported
significant variation. We hope that our findings prompt more ecologists
to consider carefully the detection process when designing studies
and analyzing results, especially for sub-disciplines where incorporation
of imperfect detection in study design and analysis so far has been
lacking.</p>},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0111436},
file = {:Kellner and Swihart.2014.PLOSONE.Accounting for imperfect detection in ecology.pdf:PDF},
owner = {Tiago Marques},
publisher = {Public Library of Science},
subdatabase = {distance},
timestamp = {2014.11.12},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0111436}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"3G4pyuXK6zyk3gADa","bibbaseid":"kellner-kennethfandswihart-accountingforimperfectdetectioninecologyaquantitativereview-2014","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Kellner, undefined","Kenneth F. AND Swihart, undefined"],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Kellner"],"firstnames":[""],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Kenneth","F.","AND","Swihart"],"firstnames":[""],"suffixes":[]}],"title":"Accounting for Imperfect Detection in Ecology: A Quantitative Review","journal":"PLoS ONE","year":"2014","volume":"9","pages":"e111436","number":"10","month":"10","abstract":"<p>Detection in studies of species abundance and distribution is often imperfect. Assuming perfect detection introduces bias into estimation that can weaken inference upon which understanding and policy are based. Despite availability of numerous methods designed to address this assumption, many refereed papers in ecology fail to account for non-detection error. We conducted a quantitative literature review of 537 ecological articles to measure the degree to which studies of different taxa, at various scales, and over time have accounted for imperfect detection. Overall, just 23% of articles accounted for imperfect detection. The probability that an article incorporated imperfect detection increased with time and varied among taxa studied; studies of vertebrates were more likely to incorporate imperfect detection. Among articles that reported detection probability, 70% contained per-survey estimates of detection that were less than 0.5. For articles in which constancy of detection was tested, 86% reported significant variation. We hope that our findings prompt more ecologists to consider carefully the detection process when designing studies and analyzing results, especially for sub-disciplines where incorporation of imperfect detection in study design and analysis so far has been lacking.</p>","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0111436","file":":Kellner and Swihart.2014.PLOSONE.Accounting for imperfect detection in ecology.pdf:PDF","owner":"Tiago Marques","publisher":"Public Library of Science","subdatabase":"distance","timestamp":"2014.11.12","url":"http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0111436","bibtex":"@ARTICLE{Kellner2014,\r\n author = {Kellner, , Kenneth F. AND Swihart, , Robert K.},\r\n title = {Accounting for Imperfect Detection in Ecology: A Quantitative Review},\r\n journal = {PLoS ONE},\r\n year = {2014},\r\n volume = {9},\r\n pages = {e111436},\r\n number = {10},\r\n month = {10},\r\n abstract = {<p>Detection in studies of species abundance and distribution is often\r\n\timperfect. Assuming perfect detection introduces bias into estimation\r\n\tthat can weaken inference upon which understanding and policy are\r\n\tbased. Despite availability of numerous methods designed to address\r\n\tthis assumption, many refereed papers in ecology fail to account\r\n\tfor non-detection error. We conducted a quantitative literature review\r\n\tof 537 ecological articles to measure the degree to which studies\r\n\tof different taxa, at various scales, and over time have accounted\r\n\tfor imperfect detection. Overall, just 23% of articles accounted\r\n\tfor imperfect detection. The probability that an article incorporated\r\n\timperfect detection increased with time and varied among taxa studied;\r\n\tstudies of vertebrates were more likely to incorporate imperfect\r\n\tdetection. Among articles that reported detection probability, 70%\r\n\tcontained per-survey estimates of detection that were less than 0.5.\r\n\tFor articles in which constancy of detection was tested, 86% reported\r\n\tsignificant variation. We hope that our findings prompt more ecologists\r\n\tto consider carefully the detection process when designing studies\r\n\tand analyzing results, especially for sub-disciplines where incorporation\r\n\tof imperfect detection in study design and analysis so far has been\r\n\tlacking.</p>},\r\n doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0111436},\r\n file = {:Kellner and Swihart.2014.PLOSONE.Accounting for imperfect detection in ecology.pdf:PDF},\r\n owner = {Tiago Marques},\r\n publisher = {Public Library of Science},\r\n subdatabase = {distance},\r\n timestamp = {2014.11.12},\r\n url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0111436}\r\n}\r\n\r\n","author_short":["Kellner, undefined","Kenneth F. AND Swihart, undefined"],"key":"Kellner2014","id":"Kellner2014","bibbaseid":"kellner-kennethfandswihart-accountingforimperfectdetectioninecologyaquantitativereview-2014","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0111436"},"downloads":0,"html":""},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://distancelive.xyz/MainBibFile.bib","creationDate":"2020-06-16T14:23:34.670Z","downloads":0,"keywords":[],"search_terms":["accounting","imperfect","detection","ecology","quantitative","review","kellner","kenneth f. and swihart"],"title":"Accounting for Imperfect Detection in Ecology: A Quantitative Review","year":2014,"dataSources":["RjvoQBP8rG4o3b4Wi"]}