Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41623434›Full record

ArticleEcological indicators2025

Site selection algorithms for optimal ecological monitoring design.

Kari E Norman, Timothée Poisot

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecological indicators, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Kari E NormanDépartement de sciences biologiques, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2029-2325
Timothée PoisotDépartement de sciences biologiques, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 223764
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Comprehensive monitoring of biodiversity to direct conservation action is foundational to addressing the ongoing biodiversity crisis. As integrative monitoring programs increasingly come online in response to multilateral biodiversity agreements, establishing best practices for optimal design is critical. Appropriately selecting monitoring locations is fundamental for producing robust biodiversity data. Despite extensive development of algorithms to systematically select sites, practical discussions of which algorithm is optimal for different monitoring settings is largely absent from the literature. Here, we benchmark the performance of four common selection algorithms, outline the characteristics of the suite of algorithms suitable for ecological monitoring design, and offer recommendations for their best use under different constraints on network design. While all algorithms outperformed simple random samples, performance differences were negligible between algorithms. We recommend instead that practitioners choose algorithms based on feature availability, which varies greatly between algorithms.

Indexed as

Biodiversity monitoringGeneralized random tessellation stratifiedMonitoring networkSpatially balanced sampling

Identifiers

PMID41623434
PMCPMC7618705

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.