ArticlePloS one2025
Repeatability of wildlife surveys for estimating abundance: A method to assess the consistency of detection probability and animal availability.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A primary consideration of abundance studies that use unmarked animals is whether survey counts accurately reflect the population size or if unknown variation in animal movement or detection probability biases counts irrespective of population size. We posited that high repeatability in counts among temporally replicated surveys would indicate that counts are a good index of abundance. We temporally replicated 49 nocturnal spotlight surveys of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) up to three times each (n = 128 total samples) to test the repeatability of this commonly used wildlife monitoring technique. Repeatability was high (R = 0.86), suggesting spring spotlight surveys provide a reliable index of deer population size in Iowa, USA. Fourteen percent of the variation among replicated counts was explained by day of year and, to a lesser degree, a vegetation green-up index. Detection probability was high (~0.70) early in the sampling season and declined considerably during the following 6 weeks. Deer abundance was greater at sites with higher percent landcovers of forest and hay/pasture and was lower at sites with higher landcover in crops. Our findings suggest deer managers should sample prior to green-up in the spring to maximize the proportion of the population that is detectable, and that accounting for seasonality on detection estimation is important for reliable abundance estimates if sampling occurs over a range of phenological progression. Finally, we show that temporal replication of surveys is a logistically feasible method to assess the reliability of abundance estimates from study designs that are normally conducted with single visits.
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.