Estimating Site Occupancy Rates When Detection Probabilities Are Less Than One.¶
MacKenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Lachman, G. B., Droege, S., Royle, J. A., & Langtimm, C. A. (2002). Estimating Site Occupancy Rates When Detection Probabilities Are Less Than One. Ecology, 83(8), 2248-2255.
Cited by¶
4 citations across 4 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Absence as Information
- Survey methodology and ecology. Non-response is informative about who is missing and why, and absence-of-detection is not absence-of-species, motivating occupancy models with explicit detection probability.
This sourceFormalizes occupancy models in which non-detection is not absence-of-species because detection probability is explicitly modeled.
- Survey methodology and ecology. Non-response is informative about who is missing and why, and absence-of-detection is not absence-of-species, motivating occupancy models with explicit detection probability.
- Absence Of Evidence Vs Evidence Of Absence
- In ecology, "we did not detect the species" becomes evidence of likely extinction only after detection probability is estimated from survey effort, and occupancy models formalize exactly this.
This sourceFormalizes occupancy models that convert non-detection into extinction/absence evidence only after estimating detection probability from survey effort.
- In ecology, "we did not detect the species" becomes evidence of likely extinction only after detection probability is estimated from survey effort, and occupancy models formalize exactly this.
Mechanisms¶
- Field Sampling Plan
- Even a well-placed site can miss a species or condition that is present but cryptic
This sourceShows that imperfect detection can make a present species go unobserved at a sampled site, so nondetection is not evidence of absence.
- Even a well-placed site can miss a species or condition that is present but cryptic
- Negative-Claim Exhaustion Check
- Its strength is that it directly attacks the most seductive fallacy in negative claims — treating a failure to find as proof of absence — by making coverage an explicit, auditable field. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
This sourceShows that nondetection is not absence unless search effort has enough detection probability to find an occupied site.
- Its strength is that it directly attacks the most seductive fallacy in negative claims — treating a failure to find as proof of absence — by making coverage an explicit, auditable field. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Verification¶
This reference passed the adversarial substantiation pipeline: it was checked to exist and to support the claim it is attached to. See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 2 other ways.
- https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658%282002%29083%5B2248%3AESORWD%5D2.0.CO%3B2 ×1
- https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2248:ESORWD]2.0.CO;2 ×1
Registry ID ref:5e28fe1c726a · see in the full table