ESTIMATION OF POPULATION PARAMETERS FROM AERIAL COUNTS OF NORTH AMERICAN MALLARDS: A CAUTIONARY TALE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accuracy of population estimates strongly interferes with our ability to obtain unbiased estimates of population parameters based on analyses of time series of population fluctuations. Here we use long-term data on fluctuations in the size of Mallard populations collected as part of the May Breeding Waterfowl Survey covering a large section of North America. We assume a log-linear model of density dependence and use a hierarchical Bayesian state-space approach in which all parameters are assumed to be realizations from a common underlying distribution. Thus, parameters for different populations are not allowed to vary independently of each other. We then simulated independent time series of aerial counts, using the estimated parameters and adding various levels of observation error. These simulations showed that the estimates of stochastic population growth rate and strength of density dependence were biased even when moderate sampling errors were present. In contrast, the estimates of the environmental stochasticity and the carrying capacity were unbiased even for short time series and large observation error. Our results underline the importance of reducing the magnitude of sampling error in the design of large-scale monitoring programs of population fluctuations.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".