@article {Pelissier2007Operational,
	title = {An operational, additive framework for species diversity partitioning and beta-diversity analysis},
	journal = {Journal of Ecology},
	volume = {95},
	number = {2},
	year = {2007},
	month = {March},
	pages = {294{\textendash}300},
	publisher = {Blackwell Publishing},
	keywords = {diversity, methods},
	issn = {0022-0477},
	doi = {10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01211.x},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01211.x},
	author = {Pelissier, Raphael and Couteron, Pierre}
}
@article {Dudley2009Quick,
	title = {A quick guide for developing effective bioinformatics programming skills.},
	journal = {PLoS computational biology},
	volume = {5},
	number = {12},
	year = {2009},
	month = {December},
	pages = {e1000589+},
	publisher = {Public Library of Science},
	keywords = {it, methods, programming},
	issn = {1553-7358},
	doi = {10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000589},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000589},
	author = {Dudley, Joel T. and Butte, Atul J.}
}
@article {Franklin2009Tropical,
	title = {Tropical Mosquito Assemblages Demonstrate {\textquoteright}Textbook{\textquoteright} Annual Cycles},
	journal = {PLoS ONE},
	volume = {4},
	number = {12},
	year = {2009},
	month = {December},
	pages = {e8296+},
	keywords = {abundance, biodiversity, cycles, ecology, insects, mds, methods, ordination, tropics},
	issn = {1932-6203},
	doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0008296},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008296},
	author = {Franklin, Donald C. and Whelan, Peter I.}
}
@article {Shendure2008Nextgeneration,
	title = {Next-generation DNA sequencing},
	journal = {Nat Biotech},
	volume = {26},
	number = {10},
	year = {2008},
	month = {October},
	pages = {1135{\textendash}1145},
	publisher = {Nature Publishing Group},
	abstract = {DNA sequence represents a single format onto which a broad range of biological phenomena can be projected for high-throughput data collection. Over the past three years, massively parallel DNA sequencing platforms have become widely available, reducing the cost of DNA sequencing by over two orders of magnitude, and democratizing the field by putting the sequencing capacity of a major genome center in the hands of individual investigators. These new technologies are rapidly evolving, and near-term challenges include the development of robust protocols for generating sequencing libraries, building effective new approaches to data-analysis, and often a rethinking of experimental design. Next-generation DNA sequencing has the potential to dramatically accelerate biological and biomedical research, by enabling the comprehensive analysis of genomes, transcriptomes and interactomes to become inexpensive, routine and widespread, rather than requiring significant production-scale efforts.},
	keywords = {barcoding, genetics, methods},
	issn = {1087-0156},
	doi = {10.1038/nbt1486},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt1486},
	author = {Shendure, Jay and Ji, Hanlee}
}
@article {CampbellEfficiency,
	title = {Efficiency of Malaise traps and colored pan traps for collecting flower visiting insects from three forested ecosystems},
	journal = {Journal of Insect Conservation},
	volume = {11},
	number = {4},
	year = {Submitted},
	pages = {399{\textendash}408},
	keywords = {attraction, biodiversity, insects, light, methods, monitoring, pan, sampling},
	issn = {1366-638X},
	doi = {10.1007/s10841-006-9055-4},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10841-006-9055-4},
	author = {Campbell, Joshua W. and Hanula, J. L.}
}
@article {Schmeller2008European,
	title = {European species and habitat monitoring: where are we now?},
	journal = {Biodiversity and Conservation},
	volume = {17},
	number = {14},
	year = {2008},
	month = {December},
	pages = {3321{\textendash}3326},
	abstract = {Abstract\&nbsp;\&nbsp;Biodiversity now is considered a highly valuable material, providing manifold services of high importance for the well-being of humankind. However, biodiversity globally is rapidly diminishing and, despite efforts to halt the loss of biodiversity, positive effects are hardly visible. Biodiversity monitoring, the close observation of our natural environment, is imperative to determine the state and trend of organism populations and their habitats. Therefore, it has become a centrepiece of nature conservation across the globe. However, monitoring activities are not centrally coordinated, differ vastly in their monitoring targets, sampling designs, and human resource needs. This special issue on biodiversity and monitoring presents an overview of the current state of biodiversity monitoring in Europe, gives suggestions for the integration of monitoring data to improve the geographical and taxonomic coverage, deals with general methodological aspects of monitoring biodiversity across different geographic scales, the involvement of the public in monitoring activities, and provides some monitoring case studies. The special issue is aimed to provide recommendations and suggestions for more standardized monitoring approaches, and is mainly based on the findings of the EU-project EuMon.},
	keywords = {biodiversity, methods, monitoring},
	doi = {10.1007/s10531-008-9514-1},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9514-1},
	author = {Schmeller, Dirk}
}
@article {Etterson2009Estimating,
	title = {Estimating the effects of detection heterogeneity and overdispersion on trends estimated from avian point counts},
	journal = {Ecological Applications},
	volume = {19},
	number = {8},
	year = {2009},
	month = {December},
	pages = {2049{\textendash}2066},
	keywords = {bioacoustics, ecology, methods, ornithology, pointcount},
	issn = {1051-0761},
	doi = {10.1890/08-1317.1},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/08-1317.1},
	author = {Etterson, Matthew A. and Niemi, Gerald J. and Danz, Nicholas P.}
}
@article {Dennis2010Replicated,
	title = {Replicated sampling increases efficiency in monitoring biological populations},
	journal = {Ecology},
	volume = {91},
	number = {2},
	year = {2010},
	month = {February},
	pages = {610{\textendash}620},
	keywords = {ecology, methods, monitoring, sampling},
	issn = {0012-9658},
	doi = {10.1890/08-1095.1},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/08-1095.1},
	author = {Dennis, Brian and Ponciano, Jos{\'e} M. and Taper, Mark L.}
}
@article {Barron2010Metaanalysis,
	title = {Meta-analysis of transmitter effects on avian behaviour and ecology},
	journal = {Methods in Ecology and Evolution},
	volume = {1},
	number = {2},
	year = {2010},
	month = {February},
	pages = {180{\textendash}187},
	address = {Program in Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation Biology, University of Illinois, 606 E. Healey Street, Champaign, IL 61821, USA},
	abstract = {1. Researchers often attach transmitters and other devices to free-living birds without a clear understanding of potential deleterious consequences to their study organisms, and thus to their data. Studies investigating this topic have generally been limited to a single species or type of device. 2. To achieve a broader understanding we used a meta-analysis of 84 studies to ask: (1) Do devices have an overall effect on birds? (2) Which aspects of avian behaviour and ecology are affected? (3) What attributes of birds influence transmitter effects? (4) What attributes of devices influence their effects? (5) Are effects partially a consequence of capture and restraint? 3. We found a significant negative effect of devices on birds, both overall and for 8 of the 12 specific aspects analysed. The most substantial effects were that birds with devices had markedly increased energy expenditure and were much less likely to nest. 4. Effects were independent of attributes of the birds (sex, age, primary method of locomotion and body mass). We also found no evidence that proportionally heavier devices had greater effects, although researchers generally avoided using heavy devices. Breast-mounted and harness attachments increased device-induced behaviours such as preening, however, and the risk of device-induced mortality differed between attachment methods. 5. Other than foraging behaviours, no effects were a consequence of capture or restraint. 6.Synthesis and applications. We provide the first comprehensive evidence that transmitters and other devices negatively affect birds and may bias resulting data. Researchers should balance the benefits of using these techniques against potential costs to the birds and reliability of the data obtained.},
	keywords = {birds, conservation, methods, migration, sensors, transmitters},
	issn = {2041210X},
	doi = {10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00013.x},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00013.x},
	author = {Barron, Douglas G. and Brawn, Jeffrey D. and Weatherhead, Patrick J.}
}
