对赫斯福德和麦克劳德(2022)的回应:拒绝估计英格兰峰区高山野兔高密度的模型。

Carlos P. E. Bedson, Oliver C. Metcalf, E. Symeonakis, D. Mallon, N. Reid
{"title":"对赫斯福德和麦克劳德(2022)的回应:拒绝估计英格兰峰区高山野兔高密度的模型。","authors":"Carlos P. E. Bedson, Oliver C. Metcalf, E. Symeonakis, D. Mallon, N. Reid","doi":"10.59922/iowa5107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A recent Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) report (Hesford & MacLeod 2022) suggested densities of mountain hares (Lepus timidus) may reach 52 - 125/km2 in parts of the Peak District, England. These are notably higher than previous and current estimates of 5 - 33 hares/km2 (Matthews et al. 2018; Bedson et al. 2022). We review Hesford & MacLeod (2022) who based their methods on those used in a review of mountain hare survey methods in Scotland (Newey et al. 2018). This review demonstrated a weak, non-significant relationship between hare encounter rates using spotlight surveys of walked transects at night and estimated densities derived from spatial capture-recapture (SCR) methods on managed heather moorland (p=0.08). Newey et al. (2018) recommended that this relationship should not be used to estimate hare densities. We reproduce the Newey et al. (2018) linear model and confirm its poor predictive ability and show that removal of one outlier reduces an already marginal relationship to a near-flat line (p=0.80). Hesford & MacLeod (2022), nonetheless, used this relationship to estimate hare densities along non-randomly placed transects. We conclude that reportedly high mountain hare densities estimated by Hesford & MacLeod (2022) are biased and based on a model with little predictive power; more recent Distance Sampling estimates are from 37 - 96% lower (Bedson et al. 2022). It is important that wildlife monitoring methods robustly account for survey bias and error, detection probability and variation between habitats, especially if results are to inform potential population management interventions.","PeriodicalId":105794,"journal":{"name":"Mammal Communications","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A response to Hesford & MacLeod (2022): Rejection of a model estimating high densities of mountain hares in the Peak District, England.\",\"authors\":\"Carlos P. E. Bedson, Oliver C. Metcalf, E. Symeonakis, D. Mallon, N. Reid\",\"doi\":\"10.59922/iowa5107\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A recent Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) report (Hesford & MacLeod 2022) suggested densities of mountain hares (Lepus timidus) may reach 52 - 125/km2 in parts of the Peak District, England. These are notably higher than previous and current estimates of 5 - 33 hares/km2 (Matthews et al. 2018; Bedson et al. 2022). We review Hesford & MacLeod (2022) who based their methods on those used in a review of mountain hare survey methods in Scotland (Newey et al. 2018). This review demonstrated a weak, non-significant relationship between hare encounter rates using spotlight surveys of walked transects at night and estimated densities derived from spatial capture-recapture (SCR) methods on managed heather moorland (p=0.08). Newey et al. (2018) recommended that this relationship should not be used to estimate hare densities. We reproduce the Newey et al. (2018) linear model and confirm its poor predictive ability and show that removal of one outlier reduces an already marginal relationship to a near-flat line (p=0.80). Hesford & MacLeod (2022), nonetheless, used this relationship to estimate hare densities along non-randomly placed transects. We conclude that reportedly high mountain hare densities estimated by Hesford & MacLeod (2022) are biased and based on a model with little predictive power; more recent Distance Sampling estimates are from 37 - 96% lower (Bedson et al. 2022). It is important that wildlife monitoring methods robustly account for survey bias and error, detection probability and variation between habitats, especially if results are to inform potential population management interventions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":105794,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mammal Communications\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mammal Communications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.59922/iowa5107\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mammal Communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.59922/iowa5107","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近的一份狩猎和野生动物保护信托基金(GWCT)报告(Hesford & MacLeod 2022)表明,在英格兰峰区的部分地区,山兔(Lepus timidus)的密度可能达到52 - 125/km2。这明显高于之前和目前估计的5 - 33野兔/平方公里(Matthews et al. 2018;Bedson et al. 2022)。我们回顾了Hesford和MacLeod(2022),他们的方法基于对苏格兰山地野兔调查方法的回顾(Newey等人,2018)。这篇综述表明,在管理的石楠荒原上,使用夜间步行样带的聚光灯调查得出的野兔偶遇率与使用空间捕获-再捕获(SCR)方法得出的估计密度之间存在微弱的、不显著的关系(p=0.08)。Newey等人(2018)建议,这种关系不应用于估计野兔密度。我们重现了Newey等人(2018)的线性模型,并证实了其较差的预测能力,并表明去除一个异常值将已经边缘的关系降低到接近平坦的线(p=0.80)。然而,Hesford和MacLeod(2022)使用这种关系来估计沿非随机放置的样条的密度。我们的结论是,据报道,Hesford和MacLeod(2022)估计的高山野兔密度是有偏见的,并且基于一个几乎没有预测能力的模型;最近的距离抽样估计从37%到96%降低(Bedson et al. 2022)。重要的是,野生动物监测方法要充分考虑调查偏差和误差、检测概率和栖息地之间的差异,特别是如果结果要为潜在的种群管理干预提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A response to Hesford & MacLeod (2022): Rejection of a model estimating high densities of mountain hares in the Peak District, England.
A recent Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) report (Hesford & MacLeod 2022) suggested densities of mountain hares (Lepus timidus) may reach 52 - 125/km2 in parts of the Peak District, England. These are notably higher than previous and current estimates of 5 - 33 hares/km2 (Matthews et al. 2018; Bedson et al. 2022). We review Hesford & MacLeod (2022) who based their methods on those used in a review of mountain hare survey methods in Scotland (Newey et al. 2018). This review demonstrated a weak, non-significant relationship between hare encounter rates using spotlight surveys of walked transects at night and estimated densities derived from spatial capture-recapture (SCR) methods on managed heather moorland (p=0.08). Newey et al. (2018) recommended that this relationship should not be used to estimate hare densities. We reproduce the Newey et al. (2018) linear model and confirm its poor predictive ability and show that removal of one outlier reduces an already marginal relationship to a near-flat line (p=0.80). Hesford & MacLeod (2022), nonetheless, used this relationship to estimate hare densities along non-randomly placed transects. We conclude that reportedly high mountain hare densities estimated by Hesford & MacLeod (2022) are biased and based on a model with little predictive power; more recent Distance Sampling estimates are from 37 - 96% lower (Bedson et al. 2022). It is important that wildlife monitoring methods robustly account for survey bias and error, detection probability and variation between habitats, especially if results are to inform potential population management interventions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信