Can Occupancy–Abundance Models Be Used to Monitor Wolf Abundance?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimating the abundance of wild carnivores is of foremost importance for conservation and management. However, given their elusive habits, direct observations of these animals are difficult to obtain, so abundance is more commonly estimated from sign surveys or radio-marked individuals. These methods can be costly and difficult, particularly in large areas with heavy forest cover. As an alternative, recent research has suggested that wolf abundance can be estimated from occupancy-abundance curves derived from "virtual" surveys of simulated wolf track networks. Although potentially more cost-effective, the utility of this approach hinges on its robustness to violations of its assumptions. We assessed the sensitivity of the occupancy-abundance approach to four assumptions: variation in wolf movement rates, changes in pack cohesion, presence of lone wolves, and size of survey units. Our simulations showed that occupancy rates and wolf pack abundances were biased high if track surveys were conducted when wolves made long compared to short movements, wolf packs were moving as multiple hunting units as opposed to a cohesive pack, and lone wolves were moving throughout the surveyed landscape. We also found that larger survey units (400 and 576 km2) were more robust to changes in these factors than smaller survey units (36 and 144 km2). However, occupancy rates derived from large survey units rapidly reached an asymptote at 100% occupancy, suggesting that these large units are inappropriate for areas with moderate to high wolf densities (>15 wolves/1,000 km2). Virtually-derived occupancy-abundance relationships can be a useful method for monitoring wolves and other elusive wildlife if applied within certain constraints, in particular biological knowledge of the surveyed species needs to be incorporated into the design of the occupancy surveys. Further, we suggest that the applicability of this method could be extended by directly incorporating some of its assumptions into the modelling framework.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".