Integrating population dynamics models and distance sampling data: a spatial hierarchical state‐space approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stochastic versions of Gompertz, Ricker, and various other dynamics models play a fundamental role in quantifying strength of density dependence and studying long-term dynamics of wildlife populations. These models are frequently estimated using time series of abundance estimates that are inevitably subject to observation error and missing data. This issue can be addressed with a state-space modeling framework that jointly estimates the observed data model and the underlying stochastic population dynamics (SPD) model. In cases where abundance data are from multiple locations with a smaller spatial resolution (e.g., from mark-recapture and distance sampling studies), models are conventionally fitted to spatially pooled estimates of yearly abundances. Here, we demonstrate that a spatial version of SPD models can be directly estimated from short time series of spatially referenced distance sampling data in a unified hierarchical state-space modeling framework that also allows for spatial variance (covariance) in population growth. We also show that a full range of likelihood based inference, including estimability diagnostics and model selection, is feasible in this class of models using a data cloning algorithm. We further show through simulation experiments that the hierarchical state-space framework introduced herein efficiently captures the underlying dynamical parameters and spatial abundance distribution. We apply our methodology by analyzing a time series of line-transect distance sampling data for fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) off the U.S. west coast. Although there were only seven surveys conducted during the study time frame, 1991-2014, our analysis detected presence of strong density regulation and provided reliable estimates of fin whale densities. In summary, we show that the integrative framework developed herein allows ecologists to better infer key population characteristics such as presence of density regulation and spatial variability in a population's intrinsic growth potential.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".