Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37842044›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2023

Evaluating differences in density estimation for central Iowa butterflies using two methodologies.

Shane Patterson, Jonathan Harris, Stephen Dinsmore, Karen Kinkead

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

4 authors.

Shane PattersonDepartment of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States of America.
Jonathan HarrisDepartment of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States of America.
Stephen DinsmoreDepartment of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States of America.
Karen KinkeadIowa Department of Natural Resources, Des Moines, IA, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Pollard-Yates transect is a widely used method for sampling butterflies. Data from these traditional transects are analyzed to produce density estimates, which are then used to make inferences about population status or trends. A key assumption of the Pollard-Yates transect is that detection probability is 1.0, or constant but unknown, out to a fixed distance (generally 2.5 m on either side of a transect line). However, species-specific estimates of detection probability would allow for sampling at farther distances, resulting in more detections of individuals. Our objectives were to (1) evaluate butterfly density estimates derived from Pollard-Yates line transects and distance sampling, (2) estimate how detection probabilities for butterflies vary across sampling distances and butterfly wing lengths, and (3) offer advice on future butterfly sampling techniques to estimate population density. We conducted Pollard-Yates transects and distance-sampling transects in central Iowa in 2014. For comparison to densities derived from Pollard-Yates transects, we used Program DISTANCE to model detection probability (p) and estimate density (D) for eight butterfly species representing a range of morphological characteristics. We found that detection probability among species varied beyond 2.5 m, with variation apparent even within 5 m of the line. Such variation correlated with wing size, where species with larger wing size generally had higher detection probabilities. Distance sampling estimated higher densities at the 5-m truncation for five of the eight species tested. At this truncation, detection probability was <0.8 for all species, and ranged from 0.53 to 0.79. With the exception of the little yellow (

Indexed as

ButterfliesAnimalsIowaPopulation DensitySpecies SpecificitySurveys and QuestionnairesButterflyDetection probabilityDistance samplingPollard-YatesProgram DistanceWing length

Identifiers

PMID37842044
PMCPMC10569161

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.