Bayesian spatial modeling of moose count data: increasing estimator efficiency and exploring ecological hypotheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Moose management throughout much of Alaska and Canada relies on aerial count data, which are commonly collected using the geospatial population estimator (GSPE) protocol. The GSPE uses a model‐based analytical approach and finite‐population block kriging to estimate abundance from a collection of sampled survey units. Widespread implementation and well‐documented analytical software have resulted in reliable estimates of moose abundance, density, and composition across a large proportion of their range. Analysis is conducted almost exclusively using the GSPE software, which fits a fixed model structure to data collected within a single year. The downside of this approach to analysis is that the fixed model structure is inefficient for estimation, leading to more field effort than would otherwise be necessary to achieve a desired level of estimator precision. We developed a more easily modified and flexible Bayesian spatial general additive model approach (BSG) that accommodates spatial and temporal covariates (e.g., habitat characteristics, trend), multiple survey events, prior information, and incomplete detection. Using a series of 6 GSPE surveys conducted in Yukon‐Charley Rivers National Preserve, Alaska, USA, from 2003–2019, we established the equivalence of the 2 approaches under similar model structures. We then extended the BSG to demonstrate how a more comprehensive approach to analysis can affect estimator precision and be used to assess ecological relationships. The precision of annual abundance estimators from the BSG were improved by an average of 43% over those based on the standard GSPE analysis, highlighting the very real costs of assuming a fixed (i.e., suboptimal) model structure. The population increased at a rate of 2.3%/year (95% CrI = 0.8–3.8%), and the increase was largely explained by a parallel increase in wildfire extent (i.e., high quality moose habitat). These results suggest that our approach could be used to increase estimator efficiency or decrease future survey costs without any modifications to the basic protocol. While modification of the GSPE software is possible, practitioners may find the BSG approach more convenient for quickly developing model structures for a particular application, thereby allowing them to extract more information from existing and future datasets.
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 | 0.020 | 0.085 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".