2015
DOI: 10.3955/046.089.0405
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Novel Approaches to Modeling and Mapping Terrestrial Vertebrate Occurrence in the Northwest and Alaska: An Evaluation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the wide absence of any relevant research design specific for GGOW (see 108 - 110 for road bias and how resolved), representative sampling, of an Alaskan Bird Atlas and Nesting Survey for that matter (compare with Birds of Yukon 111 , or bird banding/ringing work elsewhere in the GGOW range, e.g. 112 ), and unsubstantiated narratives 113 this question currently cannot be answered with ultimate accuracy (compare with 114 ; see 101 for owls in Southeast Alaska). Table 3 shows that more data and information exist that actually could be used, but unfortunately it is not presented to us, communicated with the public, and available to the public or science’s use.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the wide absence of any relevant research design specific for GGOW (see 108 - 110 for road bias and how resolved), representative sampling, of an Alaskan Bird Atlas and Nesting Survey for that matter (compare with Birds of Yukon 111 , or bird banding/ringing work elsewhere in the GGOW range, e.g. 112 ), and unsubstantiated narratives 113 this question currently cannot be answered with ultimate accuracy (compare with 114 ; see 101 for owls in Southeast Alaska). Table 3 shows that more data and information exist that actually could be used, but unfortunately it is not presented to us, communicated with the public, and available to the public or science’s use.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We generated maps of potential species richness by summing potential habitat maps of individual species (McKerrow et al, ). While these individual GAP species potential habitat maps were not assessed for accuracy, previous iterations of GAP modelling efforts related to species potential distribution projects at state and regional level using nearly identical deductive methodologies produced accuracy rates of 65%–80% (Aycrigg et al, ; Maxwell & Gergely, ; Maxwell, Gergely, Aycrigg, & Davidson, ; McKerrow, Williams, & Collazo, ). The latest update of the complete data set has undergone a USGS data review and has been included in McKerrow et al (.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We generated maps of potential species richness by summing potential habitat maps of individual species (McKerrow et al, 2018). While these individual GAP species potential habitat maps were not assessed for accuracy, previous iterations of GAP modelling efforts related to species potential distribution projects at state and regional level using nearly identical deductive methodologies produced accuracy rates of 65%-80% (Aycrigg et al, 2015;Maxwell & Gergely, 2005;Maxwell, Gergely, Aycrigg, & Davidson, 2009;McKerrow, Williams, & Collazo, 2006). The latest update of the complete data set has undergone a USGS data review and has been included in McKerrow et al (2018. Since abundance data are not available for all species in the study area, we were not able to assess biodiversity indicators based on species abundance, such as the Simpson index (Simpson, 1949), Shannon index (Shannon-Wiener, Weaver, & Weater, 1950) or the mean species abundance (Alkemade et al, 2009).…”
Section: Species Richness Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Beyond being ‘cute’, small and abundant mammals, they are not really in the focus of the public for all their habitat and conservation needs. Red squirrels virtually lack a (conservation-) management program in Alaska Department of Fish & Game (2021) and in most parts of North America, as well as any abundance, population, distribution or trend estimates ( Aycrigg et al, 2015 ); the USDA still uses density numbers which are over 20 years old ( Sullivan, 1995 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%