↓ Skip to main content

Determining Occurrence Dynamics when False Positives Occur: Estimating the Range Dynamics of Wolves from Public Survey Data

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
89 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
196 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Determining Occurrence Dynamics when False Positives Occur: Estimating the Range Dynamics of Wolves from Public Survey Data
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0065808
Pubmed ID
Authors

David A. W. Miller, James D. Nichols, Justin A. Gude, Lindsey N. Rich, Kevin M. Podruzny, James E. Hines, Michael S. Mitchell

Abstract

Large-scale presence-absence monitoring programs have great promise for many conservation applications. Their value can be limited by potential incorrect inferences owing to observational errors, especially when data are collected by the public. To combat this, previous analytical methods have focused on addressing non-detection from public survey data. Misclassification errors have received less attention but are also likely to be a common component of public surveys, as well as many other data types. We derive estimators for dynamic occupancy parameters (extinction and colonization), focusing on the case where certainty can be assumed for a subset of detections. We demonstrate how to simultaneously account for non-detection (false negatives) and misclassification (false positives) when estimating occurrence parameters for gray wolves in northern Montana from 2007-2010. Our primary data source for the analysis was observations by deer and elk hunters, reported as part of the state's annual hunter survey. This data was supplemented with data from known locations of radio-collared wolves. We found that occupancy was relatively stable during the years of the study and wolves were largely restricted to the highest quality habitats in the study area. Transitions in the occupancy status of sites were rare, as occupied sites almost always remained occupied and unoccupied sites remained unoccupied. Failing to account for false positives led to over estimation of both the area inhabited by wolves and the frequency of turnover. The ability to properly account for both false negatives and false positives is an important step to improve inferences for conservation from large-scale public surveys. The approach we propose will improve our understanding of the status of wolf populations and is relevant to many other data types where false positives are a component of observations.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 196 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
France 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 183 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 23%
Researcher 44 22%
Student > Master 33 17%
Student > Bachelor 14 7%
Other 11 6%
Other 28 14%
Unknown 21 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 106 54%
Environmental Science 52 27%
Computer Science 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 <1%
Unspecified 1 <1%
Other 7 4%
Unknown 26 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 April 2014.
All research outputs
#5,872,167
of 22,755,127 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#70,526
of 194,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,205
of 196,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,439
of 4,604 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,755,127 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,177 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 196,876 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,604 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.