Estimating the ecological drivers of insect abundance when detection is imperfect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biodiversity conservation hinges on a clear understanding of the ecological drivers of species abundance. In studies of insect abundance, researchers often estimate the effects of hypothesized drivers by applying generalized linear models and generalized linear mixed models (GLMs/GLMMs) to count data. However, a significant issue with conventional GLMs/GLMMs is that they cannot account for a failure to detect some individuals that are present ('imperfect detection'), which can bias model estimates. To account for this, some researchers adopt hierarchical modelling approaches, including multinomial N-mixture (multimix) models for mark-recapture data and binomial N-mixture (binmix) models for repeated count data. Currently, we lack side-by-side comparisons to determine the ecological and study design conditions that require the use of these more cumbersome approaches to achieve accurate estimates. We collected abundance data on wild bees in a study designed to compare unrestored to restored urban parks, which had more flowers and taller vegetation. We applied all three modelling approaches to these data, using either mark-recapture data (multimix approach) or ignoring whether individuals were marked and treating the data as traditional counts (binmix and GLMM approaches). Our models indicated that capture rates for individual bees were below ~5%. The multimix mark-recapture model found that bees were ~1.6-fold more likely to be detected in restored habitats. A GLMM, which did not account for detection bias, overestimated the effects of restoration on bee abundance. Using simulation, we found that multimix mark-recapture models had the highest accuracy and precision for estimating an abundance driver, including when individuals have the potential to move in/out of sampling areas; however, we also found that increasing baseline detection rates minimized the impacts of detection bias on GLMM estimates. Our results emphasize that environmental factors can influence our ability to detect insects in field studies, and that these factors may be confounded with the experimental design. We recommend that studies planning to apply GLMs/GLMMs to count data prioritize methods that maximize detection over other aspects of study design such as the number of sites. Together, our results provide needed guidance on how to design and implement studies that accurately quantify the ecological drivers of insect abundance.
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 | 0.027 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".