Loading…
Survival and Detectability Bias of Avian Fence Collision Surveys in Sagebrush Steppe
We used female ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) carcasses as surrogates for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) to study factors influencing survival and detection bias associated with avian fence collision surveys in southern Idaho, USA, during spring 2009. We randomly placed...
Saved in:
Published in: | The Journal of wildlife management 2011-02, Vol.75 (2), p.437-449 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b4103-9b969a421cbbda07f5738a6ef6fb2b910f3d08a3ceb85913f849e80cdb2631173 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b4103-9b969a421cbbda07f5738a6ef6fb2b910f3d08a3ceb85913f849e80cdb2631173 |
container_end_page | 449 |
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 437 |
container_title | The Journal of wildlife management |
container_volume | 75 |
creator | Stevens, Bryan S Reese, Kerry P Connelly, John W |
description | We used female ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) carcasses as surrogates for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) to study factors influencing survival and detection bias associated with avian fence collision surveys in southern Idaho, USA, during spring 2009. We randomly placed 50 pheasant carcasses on each of 2 study areas, estimated detection probability during fence-line surveys, and monitored survival and retention of carcasses and their associated sign over a 31-day period. Survival modeling suggested site and habitat features had little impact on carcass survival, and constant survival models were most supported by the data. Model averaged carcass daily survival probability was low on both study areas and ranged from 0.776 to 0.812. Survival of all carcass sign varied strongly by location, and the top sign survival model included a site effect parameter. Model averaged daily survival probability for collision sign on the 2 study sites ranged from 0.863 to 0.988 and varied between sites. Logistic regression modeling indicated detection probability of carcasses during fence-line surveys for avian collision victims was influenced by habitat type and microsite shrub height at the carcass location. Carcasses located in big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) habitats were detected at a lower rate (0.36) than carcasses in little (A. arbuscula) and black sagebrush (A. nova) habitats (0.71). Increasing shrub height at the carcass location from the little sagebrush mean of 16.5 cm to the big sagebrush mean of 36.0 cm reduced detection probability by approximately 30%. Avian fence collision surveys in sagebrush-steppe habitats should be conducted at ≤2-week sampling intervals to reduce the impact of survival bias on collision rate estimates. Two-week sampling intervals may be too long in areas with low carcass and sign survival, therefore survival rates should be estimated on all study areas to determine the appropriate sampling interval duration. Researchers should be aware of the effects of local vegetation on detection probabilities, and methods to correct detection probabilities based on collision site attributes should be applied to ensure more accurate collision rate estimates. Additionally, caution should be used when aggregating or comparing uncorrected collision data from areas with differing vegetation, as detection probabilities are likely different between sites. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/jwmg.53 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_893263512</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>41418417</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>41418417</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b4103-9b969a421cbbda07f5738a6ef6fb2b910f3d08a3ceb85913f849e80cdb2631173</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10F1P2zAUBmBrAmnlQ_sFSNakaRcozCd2EvsSChRQBxewsTvLTk_AXRp3dlLov19KEJMmcWVL7-Oj14eQT8COgLH02_xp8XCU8Q9kBIoXSSqh2CKjPkmTTMCvj2QnxjljHEDmI3J324WVW5mammZGT7HFsjXW1a5d0xNnIvUVPV4509BzbEqkY1_XLjrf0M1DXEfq-qt5QBu6-EhvW1wucY9sV6aOuP967pIf52d344tkejO5HB9PEyuA8URZlSsjUiitnRlWVFnBpcmxyiubWgWs4jMmDS_RykwBr6RQKFk5s2ne1y_4Lvk6zF0G_6fD2OqFiyXWtWnQd1FLxXuZQdrLz__Jue9C05fTCiSTwDn8G1cGH2PASi-DW5iw1sD0Zrd6s1ud8V4eDvLJ1bh-j-mr---TF30w6HlsfXjTAgRI8fKNZMhdbPH5LTfht84LXmT6_nqixXRyMhU_hb7u_ZfBW-d9g--2_Av45p9D</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>918081331</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Survival and Detectability Bias of Avian Fence Collision Surveys in Sagebrush Steppe</title><source>Wiley</source><source>JSTOR</source><creator>Stevens, Bryan S ; Reese, Kerry P ; Connelly, John W</creator><creatorcontrib>Stevens, Bryan S ; Reese, Kerry P ; Connelly, John W</creatorcontrib><description>We used female ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) carcasses as surrogates for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) to study factors influencing survival and detection bias associated with avian fence collision surveys in southern Idaho, USA, during spring 2009. We randomly placed 50 pheasant carcasses on each of 2 study areas, estimated detection probability during fence-line surveys, and monitored survival and retention of carcasses and their associated sign over a 31-day period. Survival modeling suggested site and habitat features had little impact on carcass survival, and constant survival models were most supported by the data. Model averaged carcass daily survival probability was low on both study areas and ranged from 0.776 to 0.812. Survival of all carcass sign varied strongly by location, and the top sign survival model included a site effect parameter. Model averaged daily survival probability for collision sign on the 2 study sites ranged from 0.863 to 0.988 and varied between sites. Logistic regression modeling indicated detection probability of carcasses during fence-line surveys for avian collision victims was influenced by habitat type and microsite shrub height at the carcass location. Carcasses located in big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) habitats were detected at a lower rate (0.36) than carcasses in little (A. arbuscula) and black sagebrush (A. nova) habitats (0.71). Increasing shrub height at the carcass location from the little sagebrush mean of 16.5 cm to the big sagebrush mean of 36.0 cm reduced detection probability by approximately 30%. Avian fence collision surveys in sagebrush-steppe habitats should be conducted at ≤2-week sampling intervals to reduce the impact of survival bias on collision rate estimates. Two-week sampling intervals may be too long in areas with low carcass and sign survival, therefore survival rates should be estimated on all study areas to determine the appropriate sampling interval duration. Researchers should be aware of the effects of local vegetation on detection probabilities, and methods to correct detection probabilities based on collision site attributes should be applied to ensure more accurate collision rate estimates. Additionally, caution should be used when aggregating or comparing uncorrected collision data from areas with differing vegetation, as detection probabilities are likely different between sites.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-541X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1937-2817</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.53</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JWMAA9</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: The Wildlife Society</publisher><subject>Artemisia tridentata ; Bias ; Birds ; carcass survival ; Carcasses ; Centrocercus urophasianus ; Data collection ; Data processing ; detectability ; Environmental protection ; Estimates ; Feathers ; Federal funding ; fence collisions ; Fences ; Habitat ; Idaho ; Influence ; Infrastructure ; Microhabitats ; Modeling ; Parametric models ; Phasianidae ; Phasianus colchicus ; Plant communities ; sage-grouse ; sagebrush ; Sampling ; Scavenging ; Shrubs ; Snakes ; Steppes ; Studies ; Survival ; Survival rates ; Tools & technology ; Vegetation ; Wildfowl ; Wildlife conservation ; Wildlife habitats ; Wildlife management</subject><ispartof>The Journal of wildlife management, 2011-02, Vol.75 (2), p.437-449</ispartof><rights>2011 The Wildlife Society.</rights><rights>Copyright© 2011 The Wildlife Society</rights><rights>Copyright © 2011 The Wildlife Society</rights><rights>Copyright Allen Press Publishing Services 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b4103-9b969a421cbbda07f5738a6ef6fb2b910f3d08a3ceb85913f849e80cdb2631173</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b4103-9b969a421cbbda07f5738a6ef6fb2b910f3d08a3ceb85913f849e80cdb2631173</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/41418417$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/41418417$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906,58219,58452</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Stevens, Bryan S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reese, Kerry P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Connelly, John W</creatorcontrib><title>Survival and Detectability Bias of Avian Fence Collision Surveys in Sagebrush Steppe</title><title>The Journal of wildlife management</title><addtitle>The Journal of Wildlife Management</addtitle><description>We used female ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) carcasses as surrogates for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) to study factors influencing survival and detection bias associated with avian fence collision surveys in southern Idaho, USA, during spring 2009. We randomly placed 50 pheasant carcasses on each of 2 study areas, estimated detection probability during fence-line surveys, and monitored survival and retention of carcasses and their associated sign over a 31-day period. Survival modeling suggested site and habitat features had little impact on carcass survival, and constant survival models were most supported by the data. Model averaged carcass daily survival probability was low on both study areas and ranged from 0.776 to 0.812. Survival of all carcass sign varied strongly by location, and the top sign survival model included a site effect parameter. Model averaged daily survival probability for collision sign on the 2 study sites ranged from 0.863 to 0.988 and varied between sites. Logistic regression modeling indicated detection probability of carcasses during fence-line surveys for avian collision victims was influenced by habitat type and microsite shrub height at the carcass location. Carcasses located in big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) habitats were detected at a lower rate (0.36) than carcasses in little (A. arbuscula) and black sagebrush (A. nova) habitats (0.71). Increasing shrub height at the carcass location from the little sagebrush mean of 16.5 cm to the big sagebrush mean of 36.0 cm reduced detection probability by approximately 30%. Avian fence collision surveys in sagebrush-steppe habitats should be conducted at ≤2-week sampling intervals to reduce the impact of survival bias on collision rate estimates. Two-week sampling intervals may be too long in areas with low carcass and sign survival, therefore survival rates should be estimated on all study areas to determine the appropriate sampling interval duration. Researchers should be aware of the effects of local vegetation on detection probabilities, and methods to correct detection probabilities based on collision site attributes should be applied to ensure more accurate collision rate estimates. Additionally, caution should be used when aggregating or comparing uncorrected collision data from areas with differing vegetation, as detection probabilities are likely different between sites.</description><subject>Artemisia tridentata</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Birds</subject><subject>carcass survival</subject><subject>Carcasses</subject><subject>Centrocercus urophasianus</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Data processing</subject><subject>detectability</subject><subject>Environmental protection</subject><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>Feathers</subject><subject>Federal funding</subject><subject>fence collisions</subject><subject>Fences</subject><subject>Habitat</subject><subject>Idaho</subject><subject>Influence</subject><subject>Infrastructure</subject><subject>Microhabitats</subject><subject>Modeling</subject><subject>Parametric models</subject><subject>Phasianidae</subject><subject>Phasianus colchicus</subject><subject>Plant communities</subject><subject>sage-grouse</subject><subject>sagebrush</subject><subject>Sampling</subject><subject>Scavenging</subject><subject>Shrubs</subject><subject>Snakes</subject><subject>Steppes</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Survival</subject><subject>Survival rates</subject><subject>Tools & technology</subject><subject>Vegetation</subject><subject>Wildfowl</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><subject>Wildlife habitats</subject><subject>Wildlife management</subject><issn>0022-541X</issn><issn>1937-2817</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp10F1P2zAUBmBrAmnlQ_sFSNakaRcozCd2EvsSChRQBxewsTvLTk_AXRp3dlLov19KEJMmcWVL7-Oj14eQT8COgLH02_xp8XCU8Q9kBIoXSSqh2CKjPkmTTMCvj2QnxjljHEDmI3J324WVW5mammZGT7HFsjXW1a5d0xNnIvUVPV4509BzbEqkY1_XLjrf0M1DXEfq-qt5QBu6-EhvW1wucY9sV6aOuP967pIf52d344tkejO5HB9PEyuA8URZlSsjUiitnRlWVFnBpcmxyiubWgWs4jMmDS_RykwBr6RQKFk5s2ne1y_4Lvk6zF0G_6fD2OqFiyXWtWnQd1FLxXuZQdrLz__Jue9C05fTCiSTwDn8G1cGH2PASi-DW5iw1sD0Zrd6s1ud8V4eDvLJ1bh-j-mr---TF30w6HlsfXjTAgRI8fKNZMhdbPH5LTfht84LXmT6_nqixXRyMhU_hb7u_ZfBW-d9g--2_Av45p9D</recordid><startdate>201102</startdate><enddate>201102</enddate><creator>Stevens, Bryan S</creator><creator>Reese, Kerry P</creator><creator>Connelly, John W</creator><general>The Wildlife Society</general><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>R05</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201102</creationdate><title>Survival and Detectability Bias of Avian Fence Collision Surveys in Sagebrush Steppe</title><author>Stevens, Bryan S ; Reese, Kerry P ; Connelly, John W</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b4103-9b969a421cbbda07f5738a6ef6fb2b910f3d08a3ceb85913f849e80cdb2631173</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Artemisia tridentata</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Birds</topic><topic>carcass survival</topic><topic>Carcasses</topic><topic>Centrocercus urophasianus</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Data processing</topic><topic>detectability</topic><topic>Environmental protection</topic><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>Feathers</topic><topic>Federal funding</topic><topic>fence collisions</topic><topic>Fences</topic><topic>Habitat</topic><topic>Idaho</topic><topic>Influence</topic><topic>Infrastructure</topic><topic>Microhabitats</topic><topic>Modeling</topic><topic>Parametric models</topic><topic>Phasianidae</topic><topic>Phasianus colchicus</topic><topic>Plant communities</topic><topic>sage-grouse</topic><topic>sagebrush</topic><topic>Sampling</topic><topic>Scavenging</topic><topic>Shrubs</topic><topic>Snakes</topic><topic>Steppes</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Survival</topic><topic>Survival rates</topic><topic>Tools & technology</topic><topic>Vegetation</topic><topic>Wildfowl</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><topic>Wildlife habitats</topic><topic>Wildlife management</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Stevens, Bryan S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reese, Kerry P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Connelly, John W</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>ProQuest Science Journals</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>University of Michigan</collection><jtitle>The Journal of wildlife management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Stevens, Bryan S</au><au>Reese, Kerry P</au><au>Connelly, John W</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Survival and Detectability Bias of Avian Fence Collision Surveys in Sagebrush Steppe</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of wildlife management</jtitle><addtitle>The Journal of Wildlife Management</addtitle><date>2011-02</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>75</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>437</spage><epage>449</epage><pages>437-449</pages><issn>0022-541X</issn><eissn>1937-2817</eissn><coden>JWMAA9</coden><abstract>We used female ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) carcasses as surrogates for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) to study factors influencing survival and detection bias associated with avian fence collision surveys in southern Idaho, USA, during spring 2009. We randomly placed 50 pheasant carcasses on each of 2 study areas, estimated detection probability during fence-line surveys, and monitored survival and retention of carcasses and their associated sign over a 31-day period. Survival modeling suggested site and habitat features had little impact on carcass survival, and constant survival models were most supported by the data. Model averaged carcass daily survival probability was low on both study areas and ranged from 0.776 to 0.812. Survival of all carcass sign varied strongly by location, and the top sign survival model included a site effect parameter. Model averaged daily survival probability for collision sign on the 2 study sites ranged from 0.863 to 0.988 and varied between sites. Logistic regression modeling indicated detection probability of carcasses during fence-line surveys for avian collision victims was influenced by habitat type and microsite shrub height at the carcass location. Carcasses located in big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) habitats were detected at a lower rate (0.36) than carcasses in little (A. arbuscula) and black sagebrush (A. nova) habitats (0.71). Increasing shrub height at the carcass location from the little sagebrush mean of 16.5 cm to the big sagebrush mean of 36.0 cm reduced detection probability by approximately 30%. Avian fence collision surveys in sagebrush-steppe habitats should be conducted at ≤2-week sampling intervals to reduce the impact of survival bias on collision rate estimates. Two-week sampling intervals may be too long in areas with low carcass and sign survival, therefore survival rates should be estimated on all study areas to determine the appropriate sampling interval duration. Researchers should be aware of the effects of local vegetation on detection probabilities, and methods to correct detection probabilities based on collision site attributes should be applied to ensure more accurate collision rate estimates. Additionally, caution should be used when aggregating or comparing uncorrected collision data from areas with differing vegetation, as detection probabilities are likely different between sites.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>The Wildlife Society</pub><doi>10.1002/jwmg.53</doi><tpages>13</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-541X |
ispartof | The Journal of wildlife management, 2011-02, Vol.75 (2), p.437-449 |
issn | 0022-541X 1937-2817 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_893263512 |
source | Wiley; JSTOR |
subjects | Artemisia tridentata Bias Birds carcass survival Carcasses Centrocercus urophasianus Data collection Data processing detectability Environmental protection Estimates Feathers Federal funding fence collisions Fences Habitat Idaho Influence Infrastructure Microhabitats Modeling Parametric models Phasianidae Phasianus colchicus Plant communities sage-grouse sagebrush Sampling Scavenging Shrubs Snakes Steppes Studies Survival Survival rates Tools & technology Vegetation Wildfowl Wildlife conservation Wildlife habitats Wildlife management |
title | Survival and Detectability Bias of Avian Fence Collision Surveys in Sagebrush Steppe |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T13%3A13%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Survival%20and%20Detectability%20Bias%20of%20Avian%20Fence%20Collision%20Surveys%20in%20Sagebrush%20Steppe&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20wildlife%20management&rft.au=Stevens,%20Bryan%20S&rft.date=2011-02&rft.volume=75&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=437&rft.epage=449&rft.pages=437-449&rft.issn=0022-541X&rft.eissn=1937-2817&rft.coden=JWMAA9&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/jwmg.53&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E41418417%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b4103-9b969a421cbbda07f5738a6ef6fb2b910f3d08a3ceb85913f849e80cdb2631173%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=918081331&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=41418417&rfr_iscdi=true |