MNKAMinimum Number Known Alive
Copyright 1988-2018, All rights reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
MNKA derived from our intermediate scale interpretation of back left feet was 15 raccoons; while back right feet produced 12 distinct individuals.
Using the fine scale resolution resulted in a higher MNKA than the intermediate scale of resolution as not all animals had unique scaring on their pads.
The similarity of the MNKA and the program Capture estimate is in general agreement with other studies suggesting 4.7-19.1 raccoons/[km.sup.2] in rural areas (Perry et at., 1989; Smith et al., 1994; Blackwell et at., 2004; Totton et al., 2004; Roy Nielsen and Nielsen, 2007; Rosatte el al, 2010; Beasley et al., 2012; Graser et al., 2012; Sollmann et al., 2013; Waldstein Parsons et al., 2013).
MNKA) as a measure of abundance instead of probabilistic models such as Cormack-Jolly-Seber, the most important open population model for population estimates.
Behind all those issues for less biased population estimates and development of more robust studies is the detection probability which is not accounted for in MNKA as well as in the other estimates called deterministic like index based on simple count or unit of effort.
The average increase in population abundance (MNKA) for each sampling night is shown for each species, as a proportion of the previous cumulative abundance.
Both single and doubly within-subject repeated measures analysis of variance (rmANOVA; PROC ANOVA, SAS 1990a) were used to analyze MNKA estimates of small mammal numbers by season (Potvin et al.
Mean MNKA showed a Poisson distribution; therefore I used generalized linear models assuming a Poisson error distribution and a log link function for all analyses (McCullagh and Nelder, 1989).
- We estimated weekly population size in each habitat for the three populations using the Minimum Number Known Alive method (MNKA) (Hilborn et al., 1976).
However, weekly population size estimates were significantly larger for populations in the two habitat islands (A, B) as compared to the population in the continuous forested habitat (C) [(mean MNKA (SE): A: 9.25 (1.28); B: 13.75 (1.38); C: 4.88 (1.28)), (Friedman's test, [[Chi].sup.2] = 14.25, P [less than or equal to] 0.01, df = 2)].
(1992) inappropriately mixed minimum number known alive (MNKA) and modified Lincoln-Peterson (MLP) estimators and used MNKA if [less than]10 individuals were caught.
Data from grids and transects were never combined; mean MNKA densities of woodrats for categories of forest that were trapped with different methods were compared (Carey et al.