These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27547297)

  • 1. A generalised random encounter model for estimating animal density with remote sensor data.
    Lucas TC; Moorcroft EA; Freeman R; Rowcliffe JM; Jones KE
    Methods Ecol Evol; 2015 May; 6(5):500-509. PubMed ID: 27547297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Applying a random encounter model to estimate lion density from camera traps in Serengeti National Park, Tanzania.
    Cusack JJ; Swanson A; Coulson T; Packer C; Carbone C; Dickman AJ; Kosmala M; Lintott C; Rowcliffe JM
    J Wildl Manage; 2015 Aug; 79(6):1014-1021. PubMed ID: 26640297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Assessing the robustness of time-to-event models for estimating unmarked wildlife abundance using remote cameras.
    Loonam KE; Lukacs PM; Ausband DE; Mitchell MS; Robinson HS
    Ecol Appl; 2021 Sep; 31(6):e02388. PubMed ID: 34156123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Estimating population density of insectivorous bats based on stationary acoustic detectors: A case study.
    Milchram M; Suarez-Rubio M; Schröder A; Bruckner A
    Ecol Evol; 2020 Feb; 10(3):1135-1144. PubMed ID: 32076503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Evaluation of camera trap-based abundance estimators for unmarked populations.
    Amburgey SM; Yackel Adams AA; Gardner B; Hostetter NJ; Siers SR; McClintock BT; Converse SJ
    Ecol Appl; 2021 Oct; 31(7):e02410. PubMed ID: 34255398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Density-dependent space use affects interpretation of camera trap detection rates.
    Broadley K; Burton AC; Avgar T; Boutin S
    Ecol Evol; 2019 Dec; 9(24):14031-14041. PubMed ID: 31938501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Estimating animal population density using passive acoustics.
    Marques TA; Thomas L; Martin SW; Mellinger DK; Ward JA; Moretti DJ; Harris D; Tyack PL
    Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc; 2013 May; 88(2):287-309. PubMed ID: 23190144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Assessing trends in population size of three unmarked species: A comparison of a multi-species N-mixture model and random encounter models.
    Bollen M; Palencia P; Vicente J; Acevedo P; Del Río L; Neyens T; Beenaerts N; Casaer J
    Ecol Evol; 2023 Oct; 13(10):e10595. PubMed ID: 37841226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Abundance estimation of unmarked animals based on camera-trap data.
    Gilbert NA; Clare JDJ; Stenglein JL; Zuckerberg B
    Conserv Biol; 2021 Feb; 35(1):88-100. PubMed ID: 32297655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Testing the precision and sensitivity of density estimates obtained with a camera-trap method revealed limitations and opportunities.
    Pettigrew P; Sigouin D; St-Laurent MH
    Ecol Evol; 2021 Jun; 11(12):7879-7889. PubMed ID: 34188858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Monitoring partially marked populations using camera and telemetry data.
    Margenau LLS; Cherry MJ; Miller KV; Garrison EP; Chandler RB
    Ecol Appl; 2022 Jun; 32(4):e2553. PubMed ID: 35112750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Double-observer approach with camera traps can correct imperfect detection and improve the accuracy of density estimation of unmarked animal populations.
    Nakashima Y; Hongo S; Mizuno K; Yajima G; Dzefck ZCB
    Sci Rep; 2022 Feb; 12(1):2011. PubMed ID: 35132116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A camera-based method for estimating absolute density in animals displaying home range behaviour.
    Campos-Candela A; Palmer M; Balle S; Alós J
    J Anim Ecol; 2018 May; 87(3):825-837. PubMed ID: 29243250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Distance and size matters: A comparison of six wildlife camera traps and their usefulness for wild birds.
    Randler C; Kalb N
    Ecol Evol; 2018 Jul; 8(14):7151-7163. PubMed ID: 30073074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Population density estimated from locations of individuals on a passive detector array.
    Efford MG; Dawson DK; Borchers DL
    Ecology; 2009 Oct; 90(10):2676-82. PubMed ID: 19886477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Camera traps and activity signs to estimate wild boar density and derive abundance indices.
    Massei G; Coats J; Lambert MS; Pietravalle S; Gill R; Cowan D
    Pest Manag Sci; 2018 Apr; 74(4):853-860. PubMed ID: 29024317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Empirical evaluation of the spatial scale and detection process of camera trap surveys.
    Kays R; Hody A; Jachowski DS; Parsons AW
    Mov Ecol; 2021 Aug; 9(1):41. PubMed ID: 34391486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Estimating effective survey duration in camera trap distance sampling surveys.
    Kühl HS; Buckland ST; Henrich M; Howe E; Heurich M
    Ecol Evol; 2023 Oct; 13(10):e10599. PubMed ID: 37841220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Estimating the movements of terrestrial animal populations using broad-scale occurrence data.
    Supp SR; Bohrer G; Fieberg J; La Sorte FA
    Mov Ecol; 2021 Dec; 9(1):60. PubMed ID: 34895345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Testing the consistency of wildlife data types before combining them: the case of camera traps and telemetry.
    Popescu VD; Valpine P; Sweitzer RA
    Ecol Evol; 2014 Apr; 4(7):933-43. PubMed ID: 24772272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.