Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31100093›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Using an individual-based model to assess common biases in lek-based count data to estimate population trajectories of lesser prairie-chickens.

Beth E Ross, Daniel S Sullins, David A Haukos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Beth E RossU.S. Geological Survey, South Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5634-4951
Daniel S SullinsKansas State University, Division of Biology, Manhattan, Kansas, United States of America.
David A HaukosKansas State University, Division of Biology, Manhattan, Kansas, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Researchers and managers are often interested in monitoring the underlying state of a population (e.g., abundance), yet error in the observation process might mask underlying changes due to imperfect detection and availability for sampling. Additional heterogeneity can be introduced into a monitoring program when male-based surveys are used as an index for the total population. Often, male-based surveys are used for avian species, as males are conspicuous and more easily monitored than females. To determine if male-based lek surveys capture changes or trends in population abundance based on female survival and reproduction, we developed a virtual ecologist approach using the lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) as an example. Our approach used an individual-based model to simulate lek counts based on female vital rate data, included models where detection and lek attendance probabilities were <1, and was analyzed using both unadjusted counts and an N-mixture model to compare estimates of population abundance and growth rates. Using lek counts to estimate population growth rates without accounting for detection probability or density-based lek attendance consistently biased population growth rates and abundance estimates. Our results therefore suggest that lek-based surveys used without accounting for lek attendance and detection probability may miss important trends in population changes. Rather than population-level inference, lek-based surveys not accounting for lek attendance and detection probability may instead be better for inferring broad-scale range shifts of lesser prairie-chicken populations in a presence/absence framework.

Indexed as

EcosystemModels, StatisticalPopulation DensityPopulation DynamicsAnimalsChickensConservation of Natural ResourcesFemaleMale

Identifiers

PMID31100093
PMCPMC6524812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.