Evaluating noninvasive genetic sampling techniques to estimate large carnivore abundance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monitoring large carnivores is difficult because of intrinsically low densities and can be dangerous if physical capture is required. Noninvasive genetic sampling (NGS) is a safe and cost-effective alternative to physical capture. We evaluated the utility of two NGS methods (scat detection dogs and hair sampling) to obtain genetic samples for abundance estimation of coyotes, black bears and Canada lynx in three areas of Newfoundland, Canada. We calculated abundance estimates using program capwire, compared sampling costs, and the cost/sample for each method relative to species and study site, and performed simulations to determine the sampling intensity necessary to achieve abundance estimates with coefficients of variation (CV) of <10%. Scat sampling was effective for both coyotes and bears and hair snags effectively sampled bears in two of three study sites. Rub pads were ineffective in sampling coyotes and lynx. The precision of abundance estimates was dependent upon the number of captures/individual. Our simulations suggested that ~3.4 captures/individual will result in a < 10% CV for abundance estimates when populations are small (23-39), but fewer captures/individual may be sufficient for larger populations. We found scat sampling was more cost-effective for sampling multiple species, but suggest that hair sampling may be less expensive at study sites with limited road access for bears. Given the dependence of sampling scheme on species and study site, the optimal sampling scheme is likely to be study-specific warranting pilot studies in most circumstances.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".