N-mixture model-based estimate of relative abundance of sloth bear (<i>Melursus ursinus</i>) in response to biotic and abiotic factors in a human-dominated landscape of central India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reliable estimation of abundance is a prerequisite for a species’ conservation planning in human-dominated landscapes, especially if the species is elusive and involved in conflicts. As a means of population estimation, the importance of camera traps has been recognized globally, although estimating the abundance of unmarked, cryptic species has always been a challenge to conservation biologists. This study explores the use of the N-mixture model with three probability distributions, i.e ., Poisson, negative binomial (NB) and zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP), to estimate the relative abundance of sloth bears ( Melursus ursinus ) based on a camera trapping exercise in Sanjay Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh from December 2016 to April 2017. We used environmental and anthropogenic covariates to model the variation in the abundance of sloth bears. We also compared null model estimates (mean site abundance) obtained from the N-mixture model to those of the Royle-Nichols abundance-induced heterogeneity model (RN model) to assess the application of similar site-structured models. Models with Poisson distributions produced ecologically realistic and more precise estimates of mean site abundance ( λ = 2.60 ± 0.64) compared with other distributions, despite the relatively high Akaike Information Criterion value. Area of mixed and sal forest, the photographic capture rate of humans and distance to the nearest village predicted a higher relative abundance of sloth bears. Mean site abundance estimates of sloth bears obtained from the N-mixture model (Poisson distribution) and the RN model were comparable, indicating the overall utility of these models in this field. However, density estimates of sloth bears based on spatially explicit methods are essential for evaluating the efficacy of the relatively more cost-effective N-mixture model. Compared to commonly used index/encounter-based methods, the N-mixture model equipped with knowledge on governing biotic and abiotic factors provides better relative abundance estimates for a species like the sloth bear. In the absence of absolute abundance estimates, the present study could be insightful for the long-term conservation and management of sloth bears.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".