Assessing biological realism of wildlife population estimates in data‐poor systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Large carnivore management is often contentious, particularly in jurisdictions where hunting and conservation efforts collide. Regulated hunting is a common management tool, yet relevant decisions are commonly taken in the absence of reliable population data and are driven by factors other than biological considerations. We used European large carnivore (brown bear Ursus arctos , wolf Canis lupus and Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx ) management to evaluate the biological plausibility of reported population estimates used in hunting decisions. We used Romania as a test case as this region is not only data‐poor, but the public and private game managers are beneficiaries of revenue from hunting activities. We assessed the following: (i) how population growth rates calculated from reported abundances between 2005 and 2012 compared to published growth rates empirically derived from European and North American populations; (ii) whether biological unrealism compounded through time by testing whether reported estimates fell within the bounds of biologically plausible trajectories; and (iii) the relationship between the occurrence of biologically unrealistic estimates and financial incentives (amount of hunting). For U. arctos , which generates high revenue, estimated annual population growth rates were frequently greater than maximum published growth rates (up to 1·5 for reported versus 1·136 in the literature). Reported estimates were greater than maximum simulated populations in 32% of cases, and the difference was positively correlated with hunting ( r s = 0·576). Population growth rates for C. lupus overshot the maximum published growth rate (1·35) less frequently, reported estimates were within the bounds of biologically plausible estimates (91% of cases), and there was a weak correlation between hunting and biologically unrealistic estimates ( r s = 0·182). L. lynx population growth rates derived from reported estimates were lower than minimum simulated populations (60% of cases), and there was a weak correlation between hunting and biologically unrealistic estimates ( r s = 0·164). Synthesis and applications . Our study suggests that comparing population estimates used by management agencies to demographic data obtained through rigorous peer‐reviewed studies is a useful approach for evaluating the biological plausibility of wildlife data in data‐poor systems, especially when management decisions might be influenced by non‐scientific incentives.
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".