Integrating high‐speed videos in capture‐mark‐recapture studies of insects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Capture–mark–recapture (CMR) studies have been used extensively in ecology and evolution. While it is feasible to apply CMR in some animals, it is considerably more challenging in small fast‐moving species such as insects. In these groups, low recapture rates can bias estimates of demographic parameters, thereby handicapping effective analysis and management of wild populations. Here, we use high‐speed videos (HSV) to capture two large dragonfly species,Anax juniusandRhionaeschna multicolor, that rarely land and, thus, are particularly challenging for CMR studies. We test whether HSV, compared to conventional “eye” observations, increases the “resighting” rates and, consequently, improves estimates of both survival rates and the effects of demographic covariates on survival. We show that the use of HSV increases the number of resights by 64% inA. juniusand 48% inR. multicolor. HSV improved our estimates of resighting and survival probability which were either under‐ or overestimated with the conventional observations. Including HSV improved credible intervals for resighting rate and survival probability by 190% and 130% inA. juniusandR. multicolor, respectively. Hence, it has the potential to open the door to a wide range of research possibilities on species that are traditionally difficult to monitor with distance sampling, including within insects and birds.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".