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 *

160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29045478)

  • 1. Camera trap placement and the potential for bias due to trails and other features.
    Kolowski JM; Forrester TD
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(10):e0186679. PubMed ID: 29045478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Assessing arrays of multiple trail cameras to detect North American mammals.
    Evans BE; Mosby CE; Mortelliti A
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(6):e0217543. PubMed ID: 31206527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Camera trap arrays improve detection probability of wildlife: Investigating study design considerations using an empirical dataset.
    O'Connor KM; Nathan LR; Liberati MR; Tingley MW; Vokoun JC; Rittenhouse TAG
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(4):e0175684. PubMed ID: 28422973
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Single-Camera Trap Survey Designs Miss Detections: Impacts on Estimates of Occupancy and Community Metrics.
    Pease BS; Nielsen CK; Holzmueller EJ
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(11):e0166689. PubMed ID: 27902733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Camera trap placement for evaluating species richness, abundance, and activity.
    Tanwar KS; Sadhu A; Jhala YV
    Sci Rep; 2021 Nov; 11(1):23050. PubMed ID: 34845287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Random versus Game Trail-Based Camera Trap Placement Strategy for Monitoring Terrestrial Mammal Communities.
    Cusack JJ; Dickman AJ; Rowcliffe JM; Carbone C; Macdonald DW; Coulson T
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(5):e0126373. PubMed ID: 25950183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Developing recommendations for monitoring wildlife underpass usage using trail cameras.
    Pomezanski D; Bennett L
    Environ Monit Assess; 2018 Jun; 190(7):413. PubMed ID: 29926192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Stereo camera trap for wildlife in situ observations and measurements.
    Xu Z; Sun L; Wang X; Lei P; He J; Zhou Y
    Appl Opt; 2020 Apr; 59(10):3262-3269. PubMed ID: 32400611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Toward reliable population density estimates of partially marked populations using spatially explicit mark-resight methods.
    Carter A; Potts JM; Roshier DA
    Ecol Evol; 2019 Feb; 9(4):2131-2141. PubMed ID: 30847098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Annual and spatial variation in composition and activity of terrestrial mammals on two replicate plots in lowland forest of eastern Ecuador.
    Blake JG; Loiselle BA
    PeerJ; 2018; 6():e4241. PubMed ID: 29333349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Assessing the status of wild felids in a highly-disturbed commercial forest reserve in Borneo and the implications for camera trap survey design.
    Wearn OR; Rowcliffe JM; Carbone C; Bernard H; Ewers RM
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(11):e77598. PubMed ID: 24223717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Carolina critters: a collection of camera-trap data from wildlife surveys across North Carolina.
    Lasky M; Parsons AW; Schuttler SG; Hess G; Sutherland R; Kalies L; Clark S; Olfenbuttel C; Matthews J; Clark JS; Siminitz J; Davis G; Shaw J; Dukes C; Hill J; Kays R
    Ecology; 2021 Jul; 102(7):e03372. PubMed ID: 33866560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. An empirical evaluation of camera trapping and spatially explicit capture-recapture models for estimating chimpanzee density.
    Després-Einspenner ML; Howe EJ; Drapeau P; Kühl HS
    Am J Primatol; 2017 Jul; 79(7):. PubMed ID: 28267880
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Determining the efficacy of camera traps, live capture traps, and detection dogs for locating cryptic small mammal species.
    Thomas ML; Baker L; Beattie JR; Baker AM
    Ecol Evol; 2020 Jan; 10(2):1054-1068. PubMed ID: 32015864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Mark-recapture and mark-resight methods for estimating abundance with remote cameras: a carnivore case study.
    Alonso RS; McClintock BT; Lyren LM; Boydston EE; Crooks KR
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(3):e0123032. PubMed ID: 25822245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Pairing field methods to improve inference in wildlife surveys while accommodating detection covariance.
    Clare J; McKinney ST; DePue JE; Loftin CS
    Ecol Appl; 2017 Oct; 27(7):2031-2047. PubMed ID: 28644579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Applications of camera trap in wildlife population ecology].
    Li Q; Wu JG; Kou XJ; Feng LM
    Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao; 2013 Apr; 24(4):947-55. PubMed ID: 23898650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Camera Traps on Wildlife Crossing Structures as a Tool in Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Management - Five-Years Monitoring of Wolf Abundance Trends in Croatia.
    Šver L; Bielen A; Križan J; Gužvica G
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(6):e0156748. PubMed ID: 27327498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Estimating the density of small mammals using the selfie trap is an effective camera trapping method.
    Gracanin A; Minchinton TE; Mikac KM
    Mamm Res; 2022; 67(4):467-482. PubMed ID: 35891629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.