DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: A comparison of cost and quality of three methods for estimating density for wild pig (Sus scrofa)

Abstract

A critical element in efective wildlife management is monitoring the status of wildlife populations; however, resources to monitor wildlife populations are typically limited. We compared cost efectiveness of three common population estimation methods (i.e. non-invasive DNA sampling, camera sampling, and sampling from trapping) by applying them to wild pigs (Sus scrofa) across three habitats in South Carolina, U.S.A where they are invasive. We used mark-recapture analyses for fecal DNA sampling data, spatially-explicit capture-recapture analyses for camera sampling data, and a removal analysis for removal sampling from trap data. Density estimates were similar across methods. Camera sampling was the least expensive, but had large variances. Fecal DNA sampling was the most expensive, although this technique generally performed well. We examined how reductions in efort by method related to increases in relative bias or imprecision. For removal sampling, the largest cost savings while maintaining unbiased density estimates was from reducing the number of traps. For fecal DNA sampling, a reduction in efort only minimally reduced costs due to the need for increased lab replicates while maintaining high quality estimates. For camera sampling, efort could only be marginally reduced before inducing bias. We provide a decision tree for researchers to help make monitoringmore » decisions.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [2];  [1];  [1];  [2];  [1]
  1. US Dept. of Agriculture (USDA), Fort Collins, CO (United States). Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services. National Wildlife Research Center
  2. Savannah River Site (SRS), Aiken, SC (United States). D. B. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources. Ecology Lab
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Savannah River Ecology Laboratory (SREL), Aiken, SC (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Science (SC), Biological and Environmental Research (BER). Biological Systems Science Division
OSTI Identifier:
1629990
Grant/Contract Number:  
EM0004391
Resource Type:
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Scientific Reports
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 10; Journal Issue: 1; Journal ID: ISSN 2045-2322
Publisher:
Nature Publishing Group
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; 59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

Citation Formats

Davis, Amy J., Keiter, David A., Kierepka, Elizabeth M., Slootmaker, Chris, Piaggio, Antoinette J., Beasley, James C., and Pepin, Kim M. A comparison of cost and quality of three methods for estimating density for wild pig (Sus scrofa). United States: N. p., 2020. Web. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-58937-0.
Davis, Amy J., Keiter, David A., Kierepka, Elizabeth M., Slootmaker, Chris, Piaggio, Antoinette J., Beasley, James C., & Pepin, Kim M. A comparison of cost and quality of three methods for estimating density for wild pig (Sus scrofa). United States. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58937-0
Davis, Amy J., Keiter, David A., Kierepka, Elizabeth M., Slootmaker, Chris, Piaggio, Antoinette J., Beasley, James C., and Pepin, Kim M. Thu . "A comparison of cost and quality of three methods for estimating density for wild pig (Sus scrofa)". United States. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58937-0. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1629990.
@article{osti_1629990,
title = {A comparison of cost and quality of three methods for estimating density for wild pig (Sus scrofa)},
author = {Davis, Amy J. and Keiter, David A. and Kierepka, Elizabeth M. and Slootmaker, Chris and Piaggio, Antoinette J. and Beasley, James C. and Pepin, Kim M.},
abstractNote = {A critical element in efective wildlife management is monitoring the status of wildlife populations; however, resources to monitor wildlife populations are typically limited. We compared cost efectiveness of three common population estimation methods (i.e. non-invasive DNA sampling, camera sampling, and sampling from trapping) by applying them to wild pigs (Sus scrofa) across three habitats in South Carolina, U.S.A where they are invasive. We used mark-recapture analyses for fecal DNA sampling data, spatially-explicit capture-recapture analyses for camera sampling data, and a removal analysis for removal sampling from trap data. Density estimates were similar across methods. Camera sampling was the least expensive, but had large variances. Fecal DNA sampling was the most expensive, although this technique generally performed well. We examined how reductions in efort by method related to increases in relative bias or imprecision. For removal sampling, the largest cost savings while maintaining unbiased density estimates was from reducing the number of traps. For fecal DNA sampling, a reduction in efort only minimally reduced costs due to the need for increased lab replicates while maintaining high quality estimates. For camera sampling, efort could only be marginally reduced before inducing bias. We provide a decision tree for researchers to help make monitoring decisions.},
doi = {10.1038/s41598-020-58937-0},
journal = {Scientific Reports},
number = 1,
volume = 10,
place = {United States},
year = {Thu Feb 06 00:00:00 EST 2020},
month = {Thu Feb 06 00:00:00 EST 2020}
}

Works referenced in this record:

Non-invasive genetic sampling and individual identification
journal, September 1999


Estimating wild boar (Sus scrofa) abundance and density using capture–resights in Canton of Geneva, Switzerland
journal, November 2007

  • Hebeisen, C.; Fattebert, J.; Baubet, E.
  • European Journal of Wildlife Research, Vol. 54, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1007/s10344-007-0156-5

Trap style influences wild pig behavior and trapping success
journal, February 2011

  • Williams, Brian L.; Holtfreter, Robert W.; Ditchkoff, Stephen S.
  • The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 75, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.64

Estimating Puma Densities from Camera Trapping across Three Study Sites: Bolivia, Argentina, and Belize
journal, April 2008

  • Kelly, Marcella J.; Noss, Andrew J.; Di Bitetti, Mario S.
  • Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 89, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1644/06-MAMM-A-424R.1

Impacts and management of wild pigs Sus scrofa in Australia : Wild pig impacts and management
journal, July 2013

  • Bengsen, Andrew J.; Gentle, Matthew N.; Mitchell, James L.
  • Mammal Review, Vol. 44, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1111/mam.12011

The Removal Method of Population Estimation
journal, January 1958

  • Zippin, Calvin
  • The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 22, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.2307/3797301

Quantifying drivers of wild pig movement across multiple spatial and temporal scales
journal, June 2017


Consequences Associated with the Recent Range Expansion of Nonnative Feral Swine
journal, February 2014

  • Bevins, Sarah N.; Pedersen, Kerri; Lutman, Mark W.
  • BioScience, Vol. 64, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biu015

Biases associated with population estimation using molecular tagging
journal, August 2000


Effective population size/adult population size ratios in wildlife: a review
journal, October 1995


Trend estimation in populations with imperfect detection: Trend estimation with imperfect detection
journal, November 2009


Optimal control of an invasive species with imperfect information about the level of infestation
journal, November 2010


Hog Heaven? Challenges of Managing Introduced Wild Pigs in Natural Areas
journal, January 2017

  • Keiter, David A.; Beasley, James C.
  • Natural Areas Journal, Vol. 37, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.3375/043.037.0117

Effects of scale of movement, detection probability, and true population density on common methods of estimating population density
journal, August 2017


Comparing the costs and detectability of bobcat using scat-detecting dog and remote camera surveys in central Wisconsin: Bobcat Survey Techniques in Wisconsin
journal, November 2014

  • Clare, John D. J.; Anderson, Eric M.; MACfarland, David M.
  • Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 39, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1002/wsb.502

Home Range and Habitat Use of Feral Hogs in Congaree National Park, South Carolina
text, January 2009


Validation of Abundance Estimates from Mark–Recapture and Removal Techniques for Rainbow Trout Captured by Electrofishing in Small Streams
journal, November 2005

  • Rosenberger, Amanda E.; Dunham, Jason B.
  • North American Journal of Fisheries Management, Vol. 25, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1577/M04-081.1

Estimating Sizes of Wild Pig Populations in the North and Central Coast Regions of California
journal, April 2000

  • Sweitzer, Richard A.; Vuren, Dirk Van; Gardner, Ian A.
  • The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 64, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.2307/3803251

Impact of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in its introduced and native range: a review
journal, April 2012


Reliable genotyping of samples with very low DNA quantities using PCR
journal, August 1996


The genetic mark–recapture likelihood function of capwire
journal, December 2007


Estimating Population Trend and Process Variation for pva in the Presence of Sampling Error
journal, April 2004

  • Staples, David F.; Taper, Mark L.; Dennis, Brian
  • Ecology, Vol. 85, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1890/03-3101

Using simulation to compare methods for estimating density from capture–recapture data
journal, April 2013

  • Ivan, Jacob S.; White, Gary C.; Shenk, Tanya M.
  • Ecology, Vol. 94, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1890/12-0102.1

Machine learning to classify animal species in camera trap images: Applications in ecology
journal, November 2018

  • Tabak, Michael A.; Norouzzadeh, Mohammad S.; Wolfson, David W.
  • Methods in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 10, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1111/2041-210x.13120

Trend estimation in populations with imperfect detection: Trend estimation with imperfect detection
journal, November 2009


Large scale wildlife monitoring studies: statistical methods for design and analysis
journal, January 2002

  • Pollock, Kenneth H.; Nichols, James D.; Simons, Theodore R.
  • Environmetrics, Vol. 13, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1002/env.514

Estimating Sizes of Wild Pig Populations in the North and Central Coast Regions of California
journal, April 2000

  • Sweitzer, Richard A.; Vuren, Dirk Van; Gardner, Ian A.
  • The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 64, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.2307/3803251

Efective population size/adult population size ratios in wildlife: a review
journal, December 2007


A new method for estimating the size of small populations from genetic mark-recapture data: GENETIC MARK-RECAPTURE ESTIMATION
journal, May 2005


Conservation action in the Galàpagos: feral pig (Sus scrofa) eradication from Santiago Island
journal, February 2005


Noninvasive genetic tracking of the endangered Pyrenean brown bear population
journal, September 1997


Balancing sample accumulation and DNA degradation rates to optimize noninvasive genetic sampling of sympatric carnivores
journal, December 2014

  • Lonsinger, Robert C.; Gese, Eric M.; Dempsey, Steven J.
  • Molecular Ecology Resources, Vol. 15, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12356

Comparing capture-recapture, mark-resight, and spatial mark-resight models for estimating puma densities via camera traps
journal, April 2014

  • Rich, Lindsey N.; Kelly, Marcella J.; Sollmann, Rahel
  • Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 95, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1644/13-MAMM-A-126

Hierarchical multi-scale occupancy estimation for monitoring wildlife populations
journal, September 2011

  • Pavlacky, David C.; Blakesley, Jennifer A.; White, Gary C.
  • The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 76, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.245

Inferring invasive species abundance using removal data from management actions
journal, September 2016

  • Davis, Amy J.; Hooten, Mevin B.; Miller, Ryan S.
  • Ecological Applications, Vol. 26, Issue 7
  • DOI: 10.1002/eap.1383

Density, Home Range, Habitat Use, and Reproduction in Feral Pigs on Santa Catalina Island
journal, August 1986

  • Baber, D. W.; Coblentz, B. E.
  • Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 67, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.2307/1381283

A comprehensive map of the porcine genome.
journal, May 1996

  • Rohrer, G. A.; Alexander, L. J.; Hu, Z.
  • Genome Research, Vol. 6, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1101/gr.6.5.371

A General Methodology for the Analysis of Capture-Recapture Experiments in Open Populations
journal, September 1996

  • Schwarz, Carl James; Arnason, A. Neil
  • Biometrics, Vol. 52, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.2307/2533048

The Impact of Human Traffic on the Abundance and Activity Periods of Sumatran Rain Forest Wildlife
journal, September 1993


Consequences Associated with the Recent Range Expansion of Nonnative Feral Swine
journal, February 2014

  • Bevins, Sarah N.; Pedersen, Kerri; Lutman, Mark W.
  • BioScience, Vol. 64, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biu015

Estimating wild boar Sus scrofa population size using faecal DNA and capture-recapture modelling
journal, June 2012

  • Ebert, Cornelia; Knauer, Felix; Spielberger, Bettina
  • Wildlife Biology, Vol. 18, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.2981/11-002

Length of Estrous Cycle and Gestation in European Wild Hogs
journal, April 1968

  • Henry, Vernon G.
  • The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 32, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.2307/3798986

Change-in-ratio density estimator for feral pigs is less biased than closed mark - recapture estimates
journal, January 2008

  • Hanson, Laura B.; Grand, James B.; Mitchell, Michael S.
  • Wildlife Research, Vol. 35, Issue 7
  • DOI: 10.1071/WR08076

Effect of experimental manipulation on survival and recruitment of feral pigs
journal, January 2009

  • Hanson, Laura B.; Mitchell, Michael S.; Grand, James B.
  • Wildlife Research, Vol. 36, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1071/WR08077

How much is new information worth? Evaluating the financial benefit of resolving management uncertainty
journal, December 2014

  • Maxwell, Sean L.; Rhodes, Jonathan R.; Runge, Michael C.
  • Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 52, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12373

Review of capture-recapture methods applicable to noninvasive genetic sampling: REVIEW OF DNA-BASED CAPTURE-RECAPTURE
journal, September 2005


Empirical comparison of density estimators for large carnivores
journal, February 2010


Identification of robust microsatellite markers for wild pig fecal DNA: Microsatellites for Pig Fecal DNA
journal, June 2016

  • Kierepka, Elizabeth M.; Unger, Shem D.; Keiter, David A.
  • The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 80, Issue 6
  • DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21102

Designs for Evaluating Local and Regional Scale Trends
journal, January 2001


Spatial capture–recapture model performance with known small-mammal densities
journal, April 2015

  • Gerber, Brian D.; Parmenter, Robert R.
  • Ecological Applications, Vol. 25, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1890/14-0960.1

Non-invasive genetic sampling and individual identification
journal, September 1999


Biases associated with population estimation using molecular tagging
journal, August 2000


Economic estimates of feral swine damage and control in 11 US states
journal, November 2016


Biology and Control of Feral Pigs on Isla Santiago, Galapagos, Ecuador
journal, August 1987

  • Coblentz, B. E.; Baber, D. W.
  • The Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 24, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.2307/2403883

Impacts and management of wild pigs Sus scrofa in Australia : Wild pig impacts and management
journal, July 2013

  • Bengsen, Andrew J.; Gentle, Matthew N.; Mitchell, James L.
  • Mammal Review, Vol. 44, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1111/mam.12011

Optimal control of an invasive species with imperfect information about the level of infestation
journal, November 2010


Hog Heaven? Challenges of Managing Introduced Wild Pigs in Natural Areas
journal, January 2017

  • Keiter, David A.; Beasley, James C.
  • Natural Areas Journal, Vol. 37, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.3375/043.037.0117

Range Expansion, Population Sizes, and Management of Wild Pigs in California
journal, January 1999

  • Waithman, John D.; Sweitzer, Richard A.; Vuren, Dirk Van
  • The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 63, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.2307/3802513

Trap style influences wild pig behavior and trapping success
journal, February 2011

  • Williams, Brian L.; Holtfreter, Robert W.; Ditchkoff, Stephen S.
  • The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 75, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.64

Comparing the costs and detectability of bobcat using scat-detecting dog and remote camera surveys in central Wisconsin: Bobcat Survey Techniques in Wisconsin
journal, November 2014

  • Clare, John D. J.; Anderson, Eric M.; MACfarland, David M.
  • Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 39, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1002/wsb.502

Learning-by-catching: Uncertain invasive-species populations and the value of information
journal, December 2008


Population Viability Analysis
journal, November 1992


Comparing methods for sampling large- and medium-sized mammals: camera traps and track plots
journal, July 2008

  • Lyra-Jorge, Maria Carolina; Ciocheti, Giordano; Pivello, Vânia Regina
  • European Journal of Wildlife Research, Vol. 54, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1007/s10344-008-0205-8

Estimating wild boar Sus scrofa population size using faecal DNA and capture-recapture modelling
journal, June 2012

  • Ebert, Cornelia; Knauer, Felix; Spielberger, Bettina
  • Wildlife Biology, Vol. 18, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.2981/11-002

Large scale wildlife monitoring studies: statistical methods for design and analysis
journal, January 2002

  • Pollock, Kenneth H.; Nichols, James D.; Simons, Theodore R.
  • Environmetrics, Vol. 13, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1002/env.514

Using simulation to compare methods for estimating density from capture–recapture data
journal, April 2013

  • Ivan, Jacob S.; White, Gary C.; Shenk, Tanya M.
  • Ecology, Vol. 94, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1890/12-0102.1

Density, Home Range, Habitat Use, and Reproduction in Feral Pigs on Santa Catalina Island
journal, August 1986

  • Baber, D. W.; Coblentz, B. E.
  • Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 67, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.2307/1381283

Hierarchical multi-scale occupancy estimation for monitoring wildlife populations
journal, September 2011

  • Pavlacky, David C.; Blakesley, Jennifer A.; White, Gary C.
  • The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 76, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.245

Conservation action in the Galàpagos: feral pig (Sus scrofa) eradication from Santiago Island
journal, February 2005


Abundance of rare and elusive species: Empirical investigation of closed versus spatially explicit capture-recapture models with lynx as a case study
journal, September 2012

  • Blanc, Laetitia; Marboutin, Eric; Gatti, Sylvain
  • The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 77, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.453

Length of Estrous Cycle and Gestation in European Wild Hogs
journal, April 1968

  • Henry, Vernon G.
  • The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 32, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.2307/3798986

Cost and Precision Functions for Aerial Quadrat Surveys: a Case Study of Ring-Necked Ducks in Minnesota
journal, February 2010

  • Giudice, John H.; Fieberg, John R.; Zicus, Michael C.
  • Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 74, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.2193/2008-507

Camera trap, line transect census and track surveys: a comparative evaluation
journal, December 2003

  • Silveira, Leandro; Jácomo, Anah T. A.; Diniz-Filho, José Alexandre F.
  • Biological Conservation, Vol. 114, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00063-6

Estimating Population Trend and Process Variation for pva in the Presence of Sampling Error
journal, April 2004

  • Staples, David F.; Taper, Mark L.; Dennis, Brian
  • Ecology, Vol. 85, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1890/03-3101

Radiation hybrid mapping of 273 previously unreported porcine microsatellites: Brief Notes
journal, December 2002


The Impact of Human Traffic on the Abundance and Activity Periods of Sumatran Rain Forest Wildlife
journal, September 1993


Effects of scale of movement, detection probability, and true population density on common methods of estimating population density
journal, August 2017


Radiation hybrid mapping of 273 previously unreported porcine microsatellites: Brief Notes
journal, December 2002


Application of Spatial and Closed Capture-Recapture Models on Known Population of the Western Derby Eland (Taurotragus derbianus derbianus) in Senegal
journal, September 2015


Reliable genotyping of samples with very low DNA quantities using PCR
journal, August 1996


Empirical comparison of density estimators for large carnivores
journal, February 2010


Impact of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in its introduced and native range: a review
journal, April 2012


How much is new information worth? Evaluating the financial benefit of resolving management uncertainty
journal, December 2014

  • Maxwell, Sean L.; Rhodes, Jonathan R.; Runge, Michael C.
  • Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 52, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12373

Population Viability Analysis
journal, November 1992


Cost and Precision Functions for Aerial Quadrat Surveys: a Case Study of Ring-Necked Ducks in Minnesota
journal, February 2010

  • Giudice, John H.; Fieberg, John R.; Zicus, Michael C.
  • Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 74, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.2193/2008-507

Small-Mammal Density Estimation: a Field Comparison of Grid-Based vs. Web-Based Density Estimators
journal, February 2003


A microsatellite linkage map of the porcine genome.
journal, January 1994


Quantifying drivers of wild pig movement across multiple spatial and temporal scales
journal, June 2017


Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States
journal, February 2005


The Removal Method of Population Estimation
journal, January 1958

  • Zippin, Calvin
  • The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 22, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.2307/3797301

Inferring invasive species abundance using removal data from management actions
journal, September 2016

  • Davis, Amy J.; Hooten, Mevin B.; Miller, Ryan S.
  • Ecological Applications, Vol. 26, Issue 7
  • DOI: 10.1002/eap.1383

Comparison of noninvasive genetic and camera-trapping techniques for surveying snow leopards
journal, August 2011

  • Janečka, Jan E.; Munkhtsog, Bariushaa; Jackson, Rodney M.
  • Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 92, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1644/10-MAMM-A-036.1

Machine learning to classify animal species in camera trap images: Applications in ecology
journal, November 2018

  • Tabak, Michael A.; Norouzzadeh, Mohammad S.; Wolfson, David W.
  • Methods in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 10, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1111/2041-210x.13120

Range Expansion, Population Sizes, and Management of Wild Pigs in California
journal, January 1999

  • Waithman, John D.; Sweitzer, Richard A.; Vuren, Dirk Van
  • The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 63, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.2307/3802513

Sub-sampling Genetic Data to Estimate Black Bear Population Size: A Case Study
journal, November 2007


Comparing methods for sampling large- and medium-sized mammals: camera traps and track plots
journal, July 2008

  • Lyra-Jorge, Maria Carolina; Ciocheti, Giordano; Pivello, Vânia Regina
  • European Journal of Wildlife Research, Vol. 54, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1007/s10344-008-0205-8

Habitats associated with vehicle collisions with wild pigs
journal, January 2013

  • Beasley, James C.; Grazia, Tracy E.; Johns, Paul E.
  • Wildlife Research, Vol. 40, Issue 8
  • DOI: 10.1071/WR13061

Economic estimates of feral swine damage and control in 11 US states
journal, November 2016


Estimating wild boar (Sus scrofa) abundance and density using capture–resights in Canton of Geneva, Switzerland
journal, November 2007

  • Hebeisen, C.; Fattebert, J.; Baubet, E.
  • European Journal of Wildlife Research, Vol. 54, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1007/s10344-007-0156-5

Evaluation of the lek-count index for greater sage-grouse
journal, March 2004


Learning-by-catching: Uncertain invasive-species populations and the value of information
journal, December 2008


A microsatellite linkage map of the porcine genome.
journal, January 1994


A Removal Model for Estimating Detection Probabilities From Point-Count Surveys
journal, April 2002

  • Farnsworth, George L.; Pollock, Kenneth H.; Nichols, James D.
  • The Auk, Vol. 119, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1093/auk/119.2.414