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 *

147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34626121)

  • 1. Improved inferences about landscape connectivity from spatial capture-recapture by integration of a movement model.
    Dupont G; Linden DW; Sutherland C
    Ecology; 2022 Oct; 103(10):e3544. PubMed ID: 34626121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Explaining detection heterogeneity with finite mixture and non-Euclidean movement in spatially explicit capture-recapture models.
    Marrotte RR; Howe EJ; Beauclerc KB; Potter D; Northrup JM
    PeerJ; 2022; 10():e13490. PubMed ID: 35694380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. An integrated path for spatial capture-recapture and animal movement modeling.
    McClintock BT; Abrahms B; Chandler RB; Conn PB; Converse SJ; Emmet RL; Gardner B; Hostetter NJ; Johnson DS
    Ecology; 2022 Oct; 103(10):e3473. PubMed ID: 34270790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Modeling spatiotemporal abundance and movement dynamics using an integrated spatial capture-recapture movement model.
    Hostetter NJ; Regehr EV; Wilson RR; Royle JA; Converse SJ
    Ecology; 2022 Oct; 103(10):e3772. PubMed ID: 35633152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Confronting spatial capture-recapture models with realistic animal movement simulations.
    Theng M; Milleret C; Bracis C; Cassey P; Delean S
    Ecology; 2022 Oct; 103(10):e3676. PubMed ID: 35253209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Performance of spatial capture-recapture models with repurposed data: Assessing estimator robustness for retrospective applications.
    Smith JB; Stevens BS; Etter DR; Williams DM
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(8):e0236978. PubMed ID: 32797083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Spatial capture--recapture models for jointly estimating population density and landscape connectivity.
    Royle JA; Chandler RB; Gazenski KD; Graves TA
    Ecology; 2013 Feb; 94(2):287-94. PubMed ID: 23691647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Precision and bias of spatial capture-recapture estimates: A multi-site, multi-year Utah black bear case study.
    Schmidt GM; Graves TA; Pederson JC; Carroll SL
    Ecol Appl; 2022 Jul; 32(5):e2618. PubMed ID: 35368131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Evaluating density-weighted connectivity of black bears (Ursus americanus) in Glacier National Park with spatial capture-recapture models.
    Carroll SL; Schmidt GM; Waller JS; Graves TA
    Mov Ecol; 2024 Jan; 12(1):8. PubMed ID: 38263096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Integrated animal movement and spatial capture-recapture models: Simulation, implementation, and inference.
    Gardner B; McClintock BT; Converse SJ; Hostetter NJ
    Ecology; 2022 Oct; 103(10):e3771. PubMed ID: 35638187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Incorporating citizen science data in spatially explicit integrated population models.
    Sun CC; Royle JA; Fuller AK
    Ecology; 2019 Sep; 100(9):e02777. PubMed ID: 31168779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Estimating population density and connectivity of American mink using spatial capture-recapture.
    Fuller AK; Sutherland CS; Royle JA; Hare MP
    Ecol Appl; 2016 Jun; 26(4):1125-35. PubMed ID: 27509753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Multiple observation processes in spatial capture-recapture models: How much do we gain?
    Tourani M; Dupont P; Nawaz MA; Bischof R
    Ecology; 2020 Jul; 101(7):e03030. PubMed ID: 32112415
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. How does spatial study design influence density estimates from spatial capture-recapture models?
    Sollmann R; Gardner B; Belant JL
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(4):e34575. PubMed ID: 22539949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evaluating and integrating spatial capture-recapture models with data of variable individual identifiability.
    Ruprecht JS; Eriksson CE; Forrester TD; Clark DA; Wisdom MJ; Rowland MM; Johnson BK; Levi T
    Ecol Appl; 2021 Oct; 31(7):e02405. PubMed ID: 34245619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Spatial capture-recapture model performance with known small-mammal densities.
    Gerber BD; Parmenter RR
    Ecol Appl; 2015 Apr; 25(3):695-705. PubMed ID: 26214915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A local evaluation of the individual state-space to scale up Bayesian spatial capture-recapture.
    Milleret C; Dupont P; Bonenfant C; Brøseth H; Flagstad Ø; Sutherland C; Bischof R
    Ecol Evol; 2019 Jan; 9(1):352-363. PubMed ID: 30680119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Data integration for inference about spatial processes: A model-based approach to test and account for data inconsistency.
    Tenan S; Pedrini P; Bragalanti N; Groff C; Sutherland C
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(10):e0185588. PubMed ID: 28973034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Estimating animal abundance at multiple scales by spatially explicit capture-recapture.
    Howe EJ; Potter D; Beauclerc KB; Jackson KE; Northrup JM
    Ecol Appl; 2022 Oct; 32(7):e2638. PubMed ID: 35441452
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Modeling abundance, distribution, movement and space use with camera and telemetry data.
    Chandler RB; Crawford DA; Garrison EP; Miller KV; Cherry MJ
    Ecology; 2022 Oct; 103(10):e3583. PubMed ID: 34767254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.