Estimating animal density in three dimensions using capture‐frequency data from remote detectors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Remote detectors are being used increasingly often to study aquatic and aerial species, which move significantly differently from terrestrial species. Camera‐trapping studies have used frameworks based on animal movement patterns to show that a species’ detection frequency, along with movement speed and detector specifications, can be used to estimate absolute population density. This approach, however, has not yet been adapted to cases where movement is three‐dimensional. Here we adapt one such framework to three‐dimensional movement, to characterize the relationship between population density, animal speed, characteristics of a remote sensor's detection zone and detection frequency. The derivation involves defining the detection zone mathematically and calculating the mean area of the profile it presents to approaching individuals. We developed two variants of the model—one assuming random movement of all individuals, and one allowing for different probabilities for each approach direction (e.g. that animals more often swim/fly horizontally than vertically). We used computer simulations to evaluate model performance for a wide range of animal and detector densities. Simulations show that in ideal conditions the method approximates true density well, and that estimates become increasingly accurate using more detectors, or sampling for longer. Moreover the method is robust to violations of assumptions, accuracy is decreased only in extreme cases where all detectors are facing the same way. We provide equations for estimating population density from detection frequency and outline how to estimate the necessary parameters. We discuss how environmental variables and species‐specific characteristics affect parameter estimates and how to account for these differences in density estimations. Our method can be applied to common remote detection methods (cameras and acoustic detectors), which are currently being used to study a diversity of species and environments. Therefore, our work may significantly expand the number and diversity of species for which density can be estimated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".