Testing the precision and sensitivity of density estimates obtained with a camera‐trap method revealed limitations and opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The use of camera traps in ecology helps affordably address questions about the distribution and density of cryptic and mobile species. The random encounter model (REM) is a camera‐trap method that has been developed to estimate population densities using unmarked individuals. However, few studies have evaluated its reliability in the field, especially considering that this method relies on parameters obtained from collared animals ( i.e ., average speed, in km/h), which can be difficult to acquire at low cost and effort. Our objectives were to (1) assess the reliability of this camera‐trap method and (2) evaluate the influence of parameters coming from different populations on density estimates. We estimated a reference density of black bears ( Ursus americanus ) in Forillon National Park (Québec, Canada) using a spatial capture–recapture estimator based on hair‐snag stations. We calculated average speed using telemetry data acquired from four different bear populations located outside our study area and estimated densities using the REM. The reference density, determined with a Bayesian spatial capture–recapture model, was 2.87 individuals/10km 2 [95% CI: 2.41–3.45], which was slightly lower (although not significatively different) than the different densities estimated using REM (ranging from 4.06–5.38 bears/10km 2 depending on the average speed value used). Average speed values obtained from different populations had minor impacts on REM estimates when the difference in average speed between populations was low. Bias in speed values for slow‐moving species had more influence on REM density estimates than for fast‐moving species. We pointed out that a potential overestimation of density occurs when average speed is underestimated, that is, using GPS telemetry locations with large fix‐rate intervals. Our study suggests that REM could be an affordable alternative to conventional spatial capture–recapture, but highlights the need for further research to control for potential bias associated with speed values determined using GPS telemetry data.
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 | 0.040 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".