1993
DOI: 10.2307/3809268
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of Mark-Resight Model Assumptions for Estimating Mountain Sheep Numbers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
79
1
1

Year Published

1997
1997
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 78 publications
(82 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
1
79
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Monte Carlo simulations suggested that an increased proportion of the population being marked would increase the precision of our population estimates. This is not surprising and was reported earlier (Neal et al, 1993) using the same Monte Carlo simulation procedures.…”
Section: Survey Recommendationssupporting
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Monte Carlo simulations suggested that an increased proportion of the population being marked would increase the precision of our population estimates. This is not surprising and was reported earlier (Neal et al, 1993) using the same Monte Carlo simulation procedures.…”
Section: Survey Recommendationssupporting
confidence: 86%
“…We used the program NOREMARK (White, 1996) to estimate abundance, for both the AH and AWB, by fitting the data to a joint hypergeometric distribution (Neal et al, 1993). Given the relatively short time frame between marking and the resighting surveys we assumed the populations were both demographically and geographically closed (i.e., no animals died and no animals left or entered the study area).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These findings suggest that this estimator might also be efficiently applied to other species living in forests and within social groups, e.g., wild boar (Kaminski et al 2005). Regarding the narrower CI obtained with MM, Neal et al (1993) showed that CI coverage performed poorly (i.e., is too narrow) for this estimator. Despite improvements brought to MM (Gardner and Mangel 1996), Neal et al (1993) and White and Shenk (2001) suggested the use of Bowden's estimator to be preferred.…”
Section: Population Size Estimatorsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Both estimators require individual and proper identification of marked animals during sightings. Finally, both models allow a sample drawn with replacement (Seber 1982), so that marked animals might be seen more than once on a survey and admit variability in sighting frequencies of marked animals (Minta and Mangel 1989;Neal et al 1993;Bowden and Kufeld 1995;White 1996). Concerning unmarked animals, only the sum of their sightings (S u ) needs to be known.…”
Section: Resightsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This method also assumes equal sighting probabilities and that no animal is observed or counted twice during any given survey occasion. A detailed discussion by Neal et al (1993) examines the robustness of JHE when various assumptions are not met. Bowden's estimator allows for heterogeneity in animal sighting probability and a geographically "closed" study area.…”
Section: 3mentioning
confidence: 99%