Integrating counts, telemetry, and non‐invasive DNA data to improve demographic monitoring of an endangered species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Population monitoring can take many different forms, and monitoring elusive and endangered species frequently involves a variety of sparse data from different sources. Small populations are often hard to sample precisely and without bias, so when estimates of vital rates like survival or recruitment point to conflicting population trends, it can be hard to determine which is more correct. Furthermore, data can be extremely hard to collect on small populations and it can be helpful to find a way to use all available hard‐won data. To address these issues, we developed an integrated population model (IPM) using all available data to estimate vital rates and abundance for a case study of an endangered woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) population. This IPM allowed us to incorporate data from juvenile recruitment surveys, telemetry‐based survival, aerial population counts and mark–resight data, and non‐invasive capture–recapture DNA data to better understand population status and trend. We estimated survival, abundance, and recruitment of four age classes of male and female caribou: young, juveniles, subadults, and adults. The four‐age class structure of the IPM allowed us to estimate recruitment from reproductive‐aged female caribou alone, even though it can be difficult to distinguish age classes—and even sexes—in the field. As part of our IPM, we developed a novel mixture model to break apart data from different age classes when age is unobservable, as it typically is from non‐invasive DNA samples. This helped us decrease bias in juvenile and adult survival estimates from scat data, which was important to our understanding of the population dynamics. Overall, our integrated model provided more precise estimates of population trends than any one method (e.g., telemetry or non‐invasive DNA) alone. This IPM provides a useful, flexible tool for biologists to monitor populations and provides a valuable example of the benefits of integrated population modeling approaches for endangered species management and recovery.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".