ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2026
Detecting mass mortality events in wildlife populations.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2026. 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.
- Strengthening biodiversity conservation and One Health through ranger monitoring of wildlife health in protected areas.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
- Detecting mass mortality events in wildlife populations.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reports in the literature of mass mortality events (MMEs) involving diverse animal taxa are increasing. Yet, many likely go unobserved due to imperfect detection and infrequent sampling. MMEs involving small, cryptic species, for instance, can be difficult to detect even during the event, and degradation and scavenging of carcasses can make the window for detection very short. Such detection biases make it difficult to understand trends in MMEs across time, regions, or taxa. Thus, we developed a simple modeling framework to clarify key aspects (e.g., sampling frequency, dynamics of detectability) of the problem and spur future work. Our framework describes the probability of detecting an MME as a function of the observation frequency relative to the rate at which MMEs become undetectable. Although simple, this framework is useful for developing an intuition about how the probability of detecting a randomly occurring MME increases with peak detectability, with slower rates of decay in detectability, and with more frequent observations. It can also facilitate the design of surveillance programs. To illustrate its utility, we applied it to Ranavirus-related MMEs in 35 populations of an endangered salamander subspecies. We found that the probability of detecting an MME was <50% and that the frequency of MMEs in this system was likely much greater than the one MME observed in the 35 ponds. The limitations of this framework (e.g., assumption that surveys occur regularly and with equal effort) may help set an agenda for future research in this area.
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.