Using mobile acoustic monitoring and false‐positive <scp>N</scp>‐mixture models to estimate bat abundance and population trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Estimating the abundance of unmarked animal populations from acoustic data is challenging due to the inability to identify individuals and the need to adjust for observation biases including detectability (false negatives), species misclassification (false positives), and sampling exposure. Acoustic surveys conducted along mobile transects were designed to avoid counting individuals more than once, where raw counts are commonly treated as an index of abundance. More recently, false‐positive abundance models have been developed to estimate abundance while accounting for imperfect detection and misclassification. We adapted these methods to model summertime abundance and trends of three species of bats at multiple spatial scales using acoustic recordings collected along mobile transects by partners of the North American Bat Monitoring Program (NABat) from 2012 to 2020. This multiscale modeling spanned individual transect routes, larger NABat grid cells (10 km × 10 km), and across the entire extent of modeled species ranges. We estimated relationships between species abundances and a suite of abiotic and biotic predictors (landcover types, climatological variables, physiographic diversity, building density, and the impacts of white‐nose syndrome [WNS]) and found varying levels of support between species. We present clear evidence of substantial declines in populations of tricolored bats ( Perimyotis subflavus ) and little brown bats ( Myotis lucifugus ), declines that corresponded in space and time with the progression of WNS, a devastating disease of hibernating bats. In contrast, our analysis revealed that similar population‐wide declines probably have not occurred in big brown bats ( Eptesicus fuscus ), a species known to be less affected by WNS. This study provides the first abundance‐based species distribution predictions and population trends for bats in their summer ranges in North America. These models will probably be applicable to assessing wildlife populations in other monitoring programs where acoustic data are used or where false‐negative and false‐positive detections are present. Finally, our abundance framework (as a spatial point pattern process) can serve as a foundation from which more sophisticated integrated species distribution models that incorporate additional streams of monitoring data (e.g., stationary acoustics, captures) can be developed for North American bats.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".