ArticleEcology and evolution2022
Assessing spatiotemporal variation in abundance: A flexible framework accounting for sampling bias with an application to common pochard (
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recommendations for Improving the Modeling of Wintering Waterbird Population Sizes and Trends.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Assessing spatiotemporal variation in abundance: A flexible framework accounting for sampling bias with an application to common pochard (Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assessing trends in the relative abundance of populations is a key yet complex issue for management and conservation. This is a major aim of many large-scale censusing schemes such as the International Waterbird Count (IWC). However, owing to the lack of sampling strategy and standardization, such schemes likely suffer from biases due to spatial heterogeneity in sampling effort. Despite huge improvements of the statistical tools that allow tackling these statistical issues (e.g., GLMM, Bayesian inference), many conservationists still prefer to rely on stand-alone turn-key statistical tools, often violating the prerequisites put forward by the developers of these tools. Here, we propose a straightforward and flexible approach to tackle the typical statistical issues one can encounter when analyzing count data of monitoring schemes such as the IWC. We rely on IWC counts of the declining common pochard populations of the Northwest European flyway as a case study (period 2002-2012). To standardize the size of sampling units and mitigate spatial autocorrelation, we grouped sampling sites using a 75 × 75 km grid cells overlaid over the flyway of interest. Then, we used a hierarchical modeling approach, assessing population trends with random effects at two spatial scales (grid cells, and sites within grid cells) in order to derive spatialized values and to compute the average population trend at the whole flyway scale. Our approach allowed to tackle many statistical issues inherent to this type of analysis but often neglected, including spatial autocorrelation. Concerning the case study, our main findings are that: (1) the northwestern population of common pochards experienced a steep decline (4.9% per year over the 2002-2012 period); (2) the decline was more pronounced at high than low latitude (11.6% and 0.5% per year at 60° and 46° of latitude, respectively); and, (3) the decline was independent of the initial number of individuals in a given site (random across sites). Beyond the case study of the common pochard, our study provides a conceptual statistical framework for estimating and assessing potential drivers of population trends at various spatial scales.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.