Integrated Population Modeling for White‐Tailed Deer in Saskatchewan, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Monitoring annual change and long‐term trends in population structure and abundance of white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) is an important but challenging component of their management. Many monitoring programs consist of count‐based indices of relative abundance along with a variety of population structure information. Analyzed separately these data can be difficult to interpret because of observation error in the data collection process, missing data, and the lack of an explicit biological model to connect the data streams while accounting for their relative imprecision. We used a Bayesian age‐structured integrated population model to integrate data from a fall spotlight survey that produced a count‐based index of relative abundance and a volunteer staff and citizen classification survey that generated a fall recruitment index. Both surveys took place from 2003–2018 in the parkland ecoregion of southeast Saskatchewan, Canada. Our approach modeled demographic processes for age‐specific (0.5‐, 1.5‐, ≥2.5‐year‐old classes) populations and was fit to count and recruitment data via models that allowed for error in the respective observation processes. The Bayesian framework accommodated missing data and allowed aggregation of transects to act as samples from the larger management unit population. The approach provides managers with continuous time series of estimated relative abundance, recruitment rates, and apparent survival rates with full propagation of uncertainty and sharing of information among transects. We used this model to demonstrate winter severity effects on recruitment rates via an interaction between winter snow depth and minimum temperatures. In years with colder than average temperatures and above average snow depth, recruitment was depressed, whereas the negative effect of snow depth reversed in years with above average temperatures. This and other covariate information can be incorporated into the model to test relationships and provide predictions of future population change prior to setting of hunting seasons. Likewise, post hoc analysis of model output allows other hypothesis tests, such as determining the statistical support for whether population status has crossed a management trigger threshold. © 2020 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".