Collaboration for conservation: assessing country-wide carnivore occupancy dynamics from sparse data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Assessing the distribution and persistence of species across their range is a crucial component of wildlife conservation. It demands data at adequate spatial scales and over extended periods of time, which may only be obtained through collaborative efforts, and the development of methods that integrate heterogeneous datasets. We aimed to combine existing data on large carnivores to evaluate population dynamics and improve knowledge on their distribution nationwide. Location: Botswana Methods: Between 2010 – 2016, we collated data on African wild dog, cheetah, leopard, brown and spotted hyaena, and lion gathered with different survey methods by independent researchers across Botswana. We used a multi-species, multi-method dynamic occupancy model to analyse factors influencing occupancy, persistence, and colonisation, while accounting for imperfect detection. Lastly, we used the gained knowledge to predict the probability of occurrence of each species countrywide. Results: Wildlife areas and communal rangelands had similar occupancy probabilities for most species. Large carnivore occupancy was low in commercial farming areas and where livestock density was high, except for brown hyaena. Lion occupancy was negatively associated with human density; lion and spotted hyena occupancy was high where rainfall was high, while the opposite applied to brown hyaena. Lion and leopard occupancy remained constant countrywide over the study period. African wild dog and cheetah occupancy declined over time in the south and north, respectively, whereas both hyaena species expanded their ranges. Countrywide predictions identified the highest occupancy for leopards and lowest for the two hyaena species. Main Conclusions: We highlight the necessity of data sharing and propose a generalisable analytical method that addresses the challenges of heterogeneous data common in ecology. Our approach, which enables a comprehensive multi-species assessment at large spatial and temporal scales, supports the development of data-driven conservation guidelines and the implementation of evidence-based management strategies nationally and internationally.
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 | 0.021 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".