MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7135306717

Estimating arthropod survival probability from field counts: a case study with monarch butterflies

2020· article· en· W7135306717 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard L. Hellmich, D. T. Tyler Flockhart, Tyler J. Grant, Teresa Rose Blader, Grace M. Pitman, Steven P. Bradbury, Sam Tyner, D. Ryan Norris

Bibliographic record

VenueIowa State University Digital Repository (Iowa State University) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPupaPopulationButterflyBayesian probabilityMark and recaptureHabitatLarvaEstimation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Survival probability is fundamental for understanding population dynamics. Methods for estimating survival probability from field data typically require marking individuals, but marking methods are not possible for arthropod species that molt their exoskeleton between life stages. We developed a novel Bayesian state‐space model to estimate arthropod larval survival probability from stage‐structured count data. We performed simulation studies to evaluate estimation bias due to detection probability, individual variation in stage duration, and study design (sampling frequency and sample size). Estimation of cumulative survival probability from oviposition to pupation was robust to potential sources of bias. Our simulations also provide guidance for designing field studies with minimal bias. We applied the model to the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), a declining species in North America for which conservation programs are being implemented. We estimated cumulative survival from egg to pupation from monarch counts conducted at 18 field sites in three landcover types in Iowa, USA, and Ontario, Canada: road right‐of‐ways, natural habitats (gardens and restored meadows), and agricultural field borders. Mean predicted survival probability across all landcover types was 0.014 (95% CI: 0.004–0.024), four times lower than previously published estimates using an ad hoc estimator. Estimated survival probability ranged from 0.002 (95% CI: 7.0E−7 to 0.034) to 0.058 (95% CI: 0.013–0.113) at individual sites. Among landcover types, agricultural field borders in Ontario had the highest estimated survival probability (0.025 with 95% CI: 0.008–0.043) and natural areas had the lowest estimated survival probability (0.008 with 95% CI: 0.009–0.024). Monarch production was estimated as adults produced per milkweed stem by multiplying survival probabilities by eggs per milkweed at these sites. Monarch production ranged from 1.0 (standard deviation [SD] = 0.68) adult in Ontario natural areas in 2016 to 29.0 (SD = 10.42) adults in Ontario agricultural borders in 2015 per 6809 milkweed stems. Survival estimates are critical to monarch population modeling and habitat restoration efforts. Our model is a significant advance in estimating survival probability for monarch butterflies and can be readily adapted to other arthropod species with stage‐structured life histories.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.167 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIowa State University Digital Repository (Iowa State University)Same topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207