African Lion Population Estimates in Tanzania’s Ruaha National Park
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tanzania is considered a country with the largest number of African lions (Panthera leo). However, the continued absence of ecological population estimates and understanding of the associated factors influencing lion distribution hinders the development of conservation planning. This is particularly true in the Ruaha-Rungwa landscape, where it was estimated that more than 10% of the global lion population currently resides. By using a call-back survey method, we aimed to provide population estimates (population size and density) of African lions in the Ruaha National Park, between wet (March 2019) and dry (October 2019) seasons. We also assessed the key factors that influenced the distribution of the observed lions towards call-back stations. Ferreira & Funston’s (2010) formula was used to calculate population size and in turn used to estimate density in the sampled area, while the Generalized Linear Model (GLMM) with zero-inflated Poisson error distribution was used to determine factors that influence the distribution of the observed lions to call-back stations. The population size we calculated for the sampled area of 3137.2 km2 revealed 286 lions (95% CI, 236 - 335) during the wet season, and 196 lions (95% CI, 192 - 200) during the dry season. The density of lions was 9.1/100 km2 during the wet season, and 6.3/100 km2 during the dry season. Distance to water source had a significant negative effect on the distribution of the observed lions to the call-back stations, while habitat had a marginal effect. Our findings show that, although lion population estimates were larger during the wet season than the dry season, the season had no effect on the distribution of the observed lions to call-back stations. We suggest that the proximity to water sources is important in study design. Further, we suggest that density and population size are useful indices in identifying conservation area priorities and lion coexistence strategies.
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) | 0.008 | 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".