ArticlePloS one2024
Composite estimation to combine spatially overlapping environmental monitoring surveys.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Long-term environmental monitoring surveys are designed to achieve a desired precision (measured by variance) of resource conditions based on natural variability information. Over time, increases in resource variability and in data use to address issues focused on small areas with limited sample sizes require bolstering of attainable precision. It is often prohibitive to do this by increasing sampling effort. In cases with spatially overlapping monitoring surveys, composite estimation offers a statistical way to obtain a precision-weighted combination of survey estimates to provide improved population estimates (more accurate) with improved precisions (lower variances). We present a composite estimator for overlapping surveys, a summary of compositing procedures, and a case study to illustrate the procedures and benefits of composite estimation. The study uses the two terrestrial monitoring surveys administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that entirely overlap. Using 2015-18 data and 13 land-health indicators, we obtained and compared survey and composite indicator estimates of percent area meeting land-health standards for sagebrush communities in Wyoming's Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Core and NonCore conservation areas on BLM-managed lands. We statistically assessed differences in indicator estimates between the conservation areas using composite estimates and estimates of the two surveys individually. We found composite variance to be about six to 24 units lower than 37% of the survey variances and composite estimates to differ by about six to 10 percentage points from six survey estimates. The composite improvements resulted in finding 11 indicators to statistically differ (p <0.05) between the conservation areas compared to only six and seven indicators for the individual surveys. Overall, we found composite estimation to be an efficient and useful option for improving environmental monitoring information where two surveys entirely overlap and suggest how this estimation method could be beneficial where environmental surveys partially overlap and in small area applications.
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.