↓ Skip to main content

Accounting for Imperfect Detection Is Critical for Inferring Marine Turtle Nesting Population Trends

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Accounting for Imperfect Detection Is Critical for Inferring Marine Turtle Nesting Population Trends
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0062326
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph B. Pfaller, Karen A. Bjorndal, Milani Chaloupka, Kristina L. Williams, Michael G. Frick, Alan B. Bolten

Abstract

Assessments of population trends based on time-series counts of individuals are complicated by imperfect detection, which can lead to serious misinterpretations of data. Population trends of threatened marine turtles worldwide are usually based on counts of nests or nesting females. We analyze 39 years of nest-count, female-count, and capture-mark-recapture (CMR) data for nesting loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) on Wassaw Island, Georgia, USA. Annual counts of nests and females, not corrected for imperfect detection, yield significant, positive trends in abundance. However, multistate open robust design modeling of CMR data that accounts for changes in imperfect detection reveals that the annual abundance of nesting females has remained essentially constant over the 39-year period. The dichotomy could result from improvements in surveys or increased within-season nest-site fidelity in females, either of which would increase detection probability. For the first time in a marine turtle population, we compare results of population trend analyses that do and do not account for imperfect detection and demonstrate the potential for erroneous conclusions. Past assessments of marine turtle population trends based exclusively on count data should be interpreted with caution and re-evaluated when possible. These concerns apply equally to population assessments of all species with imperfect detection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Portugal 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Puerto Rico 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 97 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 26%
Student > Master 17 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Other 8 8%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 18 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 51 49%
Environmental Science 25 24%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 <1%
Unspecified 1 <1%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 21 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 April 2013.
All research outputs
#14,751,991
of 22,708,120 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#123,215
of 193,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,714
of 194,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,909
of 4,967 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,708,120 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,897 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 194,081 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,967 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.