2018
DOI: 10.3133/tm7a2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

GenEst statistical models—A generalized estimator of mortality

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
49
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
49
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We used fatal collision counts to generate adjusted fatality estimates that account for human and scavenger removal of carcasses between surveys and for observer detection probability of carcasses present during surveys. We generated these bias-adjusted estimates using the GenEst statistical estimator [45], which allows modeling of carcass persistence and detection probabilities as a function of one or more covariates. This estimator also accounts for varying time intervals between surveys when estimating carcass persistence probability, which allowed us to account for: (1) missed surveys due to the above-described access issues for some buildings and days (a survey was considered missed if ≥50% of the building perimeter was not surveyed), and (2) varying time intervals between successive surveys for days when only morning surveys were conducted versus days when morning, midday, and evening surveys were conducted.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used fatal collision counts to generate adjusted fatality estimates that account for human and scavenger removal of carcasses between surveys and for observer detection probability of carcasses present during surveys. We generated these bias-adjusted estimates using the GenEst statistical estimator [45], which allows modeling of carcass persistence and detection probabilities as a function of one or more covariates. This estimator also accounts for varying time intervals between surveys when estimating carcass persistence probability, which allowed us to account for: (1) missed surveys due to the above-described access issues for some buildings and days (a survey was considered missed if ≥50% of the building perimeter was not surveyed), and (2) varying time intervals between successive surveys for days when only morning surveys were conducted versus days when morning, midday, and evening surveys were conducted.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recorded detection and persistence times were frequently either interval-censored, due to camera trap failure to record the exact scavenging time, or right-censored, because some carcasses persisted until the end of the experiments. We fitted accelerated failure time (AFT) models using the parametric distribution (among the ones most commonly used in carcass persistence models, namely, exponential, Weibull, log-logistic and log-normal 53,54 ) that best described carcass detection/persistence times, based on Akaike Information Criterion (see Supplementary material, Table S2, S3, S4 and S5). To assess LI effect on carcass persistence, we fitted separate AFT models for the V. F. Xira and Évora regions, both including 'Treatment' (Control, Power line, Road) as an explanatory variable.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, carcass persistence within PL right-of-way was considerably higher in V. F. Xira (mean time 7.32 ± 0.96 days), compared to Évora (mean time 3.37 ± 0.46 days). According to the recently developed "Generalized Estimator" (GenEst) software 54 , in a scenario of weekly carcass searches, the estimated probability of a small carcass persisting until the day of the search is 0.58 in V. F. Xira, but decreases to 0.43 in Évora. This means that, one would have to multiply the number of bird carcasses found by a factor of 1.7 in V. F. Xira and 2.3 in Évora, to obtain the corresponding bird fatality estimates adjusted for scavenging bias.…”
Section: Effect On Scavenger Identity and Carcass Persistence Sevmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These numerical assessments use a newly developed suite of field‐based and statistical tools for collecting and interpreting survey data (e.g., Dalthorp et al. ). As a consequence, they often can answer the first key question above, about how many individuals are affected.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%