Metapopulation persistence can be inferred from incomplete surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Habitat destruction and fragmentation are principal causes of species loss. While a local population might go extinct, a metapopulation—populations inhabiting habitat patches connected by dispersal—can persist regionally by recolonizing empty patches. To assess metapopulation persistence, two widely adopted indicators in conservation management are metapopulation capacity and patch importance. However, we face a fundamental limitation in that assessing metapopulation persistence requires that we survey or sample all the patches in a landscape: often these surveys are logistically challenging to conduct and repeat, which raises the question whether we can learn enough about the metapopulation persistence from an incomplete survey. Here, we provide a robust statistical approach to infer metapopulation capacity and patch importance by sampling a portion of all patches. We provided analytic arguments on why the metapopulation capacity and patch importance can be well predicted from sub-samples of habitat patches. Full-factorial simulations with more complex models corroborate our analytic predictions. We applied our model to an empirical metapopulation of mangrove hummingbirds (Amazilia boucardi). On the basis of our statistical framework, we provide some sampling suggestion for monitoring metapopulation persistence. Our approach allows for rapid and effective inference of metapopulation persistence from incomplete patch surveys.
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 | 0.008 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".