Using interview surveys and multispecies occupancy models to inform vertebrate conservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Species distribution data are an essential biodiversity variable requiring robust monitoring to inform wildlife conservation. Yet, such data remain inherently sparse because of the logistical challenges of monitoring biodiversity across broad geographic extents. Surveys of people knowledgeable about the occurrence of wildlife provide an opportunity to evaluate species distributions and the ecology of wildlife communities across large spatial scales. We analyzed detection histories of 30 vertebrate species across the Western Ghats biodiversity hotspot in India, obtained from a large-scale interview survey of 2318 people who live and work in the forests of this region. We developed a multispecies occupancy model that simultaneously corrected for false-negative (non-detection) and false-positive (misidentification) errors that interview surveys can be prone to. Using this model, we integrated data across species in composite analyses of the responses of functional species groups (based on disturbance tolerance, diet, and body mass traits) to spatial variation in environmental variables, protection, and anthropogenic pressures. We observed a positive association between forest cover and the occurrence of species with low tolerance of human disturbance. Protected areas were associated with higher occurrence for species across different functional groups compared with unprotected lands. We also observed the occurrence of species with low disturbance tolerance, herbivores, and large-bodied species was negatively associated with developmental pressures, such as human settlements, energy production and mining, and demographic pressures, such as biological resource extraction. For the conservation of threatened vertebrates, our work underscores the importance of maintaining forest cover and reducing deforestation within and outside protected areas, respectively. In addition, mitigating a suite of pervasive human pressures is also crucial for wildlife conservation in one of the world's most densely populated biodiversity hotspots.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".