MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte

POPULATION SIZE AND RECOVERY CRITERIA OF THE THREATENED LAKE ERIE WATERSNAKE: INTEGRATING MULTIPLE METHODS OF POPULATION ESTIMATION

2006· article· en· W2170985466 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard B. King, Alejandro Queral-Regil, Kristin M. Stanford

Notice bibliographique

RevueHerpetological Monographs · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueFish Ecology and Management Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésThreatened speciesEndangered speciesMark and recapturePopulation sizeStatisticsPopulationPoint estimationRange (aeronautics)EstimationVital ratesBiologyPopulation viability analysisConfidence intervalSample size determinationEcologyDemographyGeographyMathematicsPopulation growthHabitat

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The Lake Erie watersnake, Nerodia sipedon insularum, occurs only in the island region of western Lake Erie, an area less than 40 km in diameter. Restricted geographic distribution and declining population size resulted in this snake's classification as Threatened in the U.S. and Endangered in Ontario and Ohio. A combination of mark-recapture methods, capture rate information, and interpolation were used to estimate the current U.S. population size of Lake Erie watersnakes. A total of 121 point estimates were generated using both ‘closed’ population (Lincoln–Petersen, Schumacher's) and ‘open’ population (Jolly–Seber, Bailey's triple-catch) methods to analyze data collected from 1980–2004. Paired t-tests, comparing estimates obtained using alternative methods, were consistently non-significant. Although standard errors and confidence intervals of individual estimates were often large, standard errors of mean estimates, obtained by averaging across methods and sets of consecutive years, were markedly smaller, averaging 14% (range = 5–25%). These analyses demonstrate the utility of mark-recapture methods even in cases where sample size and recapture rates are low, as may often be true for threatened and endangered species. Another 60 estimates were obtained by applying the Lincoln–Petersen method to samples collected in consecutive years. As expected if recruitment occurs between samples, these estimates were significantly larger than those obtained using other methods. By comparing these recruitment-biased estimates to unbiased estimates, annual adult recruitment (and by extension, adult survivorship) was estimated to be 0.63.At 11 study sites for which recent (2000–2004) mark-recapture estimates were available, population density (adults/km) was highly correlated with capture rate. The regression relationship between density and capture rate was thus used to estimate watersnake population size at 19 additional sites for which only capture rate was known. Interpolations of watersnake population size were made at another 29 sites, thus encompassing the entire U.S. range of the Lake Erie watersnake. Interpolations were based on habitat suitability, land-use practices, the observed presence of watersnakes, and density at sites for which mark-recapture or capture rate estimates were available.Lake Erie watersnake densities exceeded those of many other snakes. At 30 sites for which recent estimates were available, median density = 141 adults/km of shoreline (range = 11–1107 adults/km). Mark-recapture estimates encompassing 15.8 km and capture rate estimates encompassing 19.6 km of shoreline on the U.S. islands totaled more than 6500 adult watersnakes. Including interpolated numbers at 28.3 km of uncensused shoreline to encompass the entire U.S. distribution of the Lake Erie watersnake brought this total to nearly 7700 adults. This exceeds 5555 adults, the number specified in the Population Persistence criterion of the Lake Erie Watersnake Recovery Plan. Estimates also exceeded island-specific criteria for Kelleys, South Bass, and Middle Bass Island. On North Bass Island, estimated population size (385 adults) fell short of the island-specific recovery criterion (410 adults) unless interpolated numbers at uncensused sites were included (total = 443 adults).Other criteria for delisting the Lake Erie watersnake include Habitat Protection and Management and Reduction of Human-induced Mortality. Recent land acquisitions, development of watersnake-friendly land management plans, and outreach efforts seeking to foster public appreciation and minimize watersnake-human conflicts have contributed to achievement of these goals. These actions, together with this snake's capacity for rapid population growth, make recovery and eventual delisting of the Lake Erie watersnake a real possibility.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,046
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,388

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,265
Écart entre enseignants0,254 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations34
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHerpetological MonographsMême sujetFish Ecology and Management StudiesTravaux en français237 207