Simulating carnivore movements: An occupancy–abundance relationship for surveying wolves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Where carnivore species exist at low densities, are cryptic, and inhabit forested habitats where detection is low, survey approaches commonly rely on observation of tracks. Recent advances in probability sampling for aerial surveys of track networks in snow show promise for improving density estimates, but they are not applicable when continuously following a track network is not possible. Occupancy–abundance modeling is an alternative survey approach for wide‐ranging carnivores, but past models may not be appropriate when using tracks because tracks of one individual or group of individuals may extend across several survey units. We derived an occupancy–abundance relationship by simulating the intersection of wolf ( Canis lupus ) travel paths and survey grid cells for a range of wolf‐pack densities. Wolf movement paths were simulated using a habitat‐biased, correlated random walk movement model using step lengths and turning angles of 17 Global Positioning System (GPS)‐collared wolves in west‐central Alberta, Canada. We estimated occupancy levels for a range of pack densities found in North America and found that pack density was linearly related to the proportion of occupied survey units. Concurrent movement paths of 5 GPS‐collared wolf packs were used to evaluate the model predictions. While the model overestimated the number of packs by 33%, the difference translated into only 13 wolves across the study area. We discuss improvements for continued development of occupancy surveys as a potential method to determine carnivore abundance where other approaches are not feasible. © 2012 The Wildlife Society.
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 | 0.001 | 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".