eBird 2020
DOI: 10.2173/ebirdst.2019
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

eBird Status and Trends

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
55
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 49 publications
(55 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
55
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To do so, the fitted model was used to predict the detected biomass at each location across a 8.4 km × 8.4 km mapping grid covering the study region, day (spaced 7 days apart) and year, based on topographical and land‐cover values at the grid location, and assuming a standard sampling effort: a single observer with a high CCI of four, performing a travelling count starting at 07:00 AM local time, for a duration of 1 hour and distance of 1 km. The mapping grid is the same as the ones used in eBird Status and Trends data products (eBird S&T; Fink, Auer, Johnston, Strimas‐Mackey, et al., 2020). The values of the effort variables were chosen to reduce the underestimation caused by non‐detection, and therefore, bring the predicted values closer to the unknown true values: for instance, observers with high CCI tended to detect species at a higher rate (Johnston et al., 2018).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To do so, the fitted model was used to predict the detected biomass at each location across a 8.4 km × 8.4 km mapping grid covering the study region, day (spaced 7 days apart) and year, based on topographical and land‐cover values at the grid location, and assuming a standard sampling effort: a single observer with a high CCI of four, performing a travelling count starting at 07:00 AM local time, for a duration of 1 hour and distance of 1 km. The mapping grid is the same as the ones used in eBird Status and Trends data products (eBird S&T; Fink, Auer, Johnston, Strimas‐Mackey, et al., 2020). The values of the effort variables were chosen to reduce the underestimation caused by non‐detection, and therefore, bring the predicted values closer to the unknown true values: for instance, observers with high CCI tended to detect species at a higher rate (Johnston et al., 2018).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, the use of eBird abundance estimates by the USFWS to delineate low-risk collision areas could significantly reduce costs for the agency itself, as well as for the potential eagle permittees seeking to develop wind energy projects. As of 2020, the weekly, year-round estimates of eBird relative abundance are being produced at a 2.96 km × 2.96 km resolution on an annual basis, and freely available for download from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology for >800 species, including bald and golden eagles (Fink et al, 2020), including species from Europe and Latin America. Therefore, low-risk zones can be updated on an annual basis by the USFWS at little to no cost to the agency.…”
Section: Impli C Ati On S Of Validating C S Data For P Oli C Ymak Er S: Us F Ws C a S E S Tu Dymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used modelled products from the 2020 release of AdaSTEM, which predicts weekly occurrence and relative abundance for the year 2019 across the Western Hemisphere (Fink, Auer, Johnston, Strimas-Mackey, et al, 2020). We used the AdaSTEM variable abundance_median in our analysis and two AdaSTEM occurrence-based statistics, PI and PD, which we define below, for two environmental descriptors in the model, ALAN and road density.…”
Section: Bird Data and Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%