ArticleEcology2026
Who needs closure? Estimating abundance with a Markovian availability model for geographically open removal sampling.
Article in Ecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
Removal sampling is an important method for estimating abundance, but nearly all removal models assume closure during sampling. Yet, closure may be difficult to assume, evaluate, or enforce in many settings. To address situations where populations are geographically open between each removal sample, we incorporated a Markovian availability process into an N-mixture model framework. This model relates local abundance available for sampling to a superpopulation through recruitment of new individuals to the sampling area. To test the model, we (1) conducted parameter identifiability analysis, (2) fit the model to removal data generated from a random walk movement model, and (3) analyzed a case study of empirical removal data. Parameters were increasingly identifiable as capture probability exceeded 0.25 and removal samples increased from 3 to 6. Abundance estimates were unbiased when parameters were identifiable, except for scenarios that simulated a behavioral response to sampling. For our case study, the model estimated negligible recruitment for benthic-oriented fishes, indicating closure, but we found evidence against closure for juvenile Chinook salmon, a highly mobile species. Our removal model allows researchers to formally test closure assumptions, to estimate the degree of closure, and to estimate abundance without bias when closure is violated.
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.