Dataset Information

Social perception of mesocarnivores within hunting areas differs from actual species abundance.

ABSTRACT: Analyzing how similar social perception and ecological field data are might help identify potential biases in identifying and managing human-carnivore conflicts. We analyzed the degree of similarity between the perceived and field-measured relative abundance to unveil whether attitude towards carnivores of two groups of stakeholders, namely hunters and other local people, is underpinned or it is instead biased by alternative factors. Our results indicate that, in general, mesocarnivore perceived abundances were generally different to actual species abundance. We also found that the perceived abundance and attributed damage to small game species were related with respondents' ability to identify the carnivore species. We underline the existence of bias and the need to increase people knowledge on species distribution and ecological characteristics before adopting decisions when managing human-carnivore conflicts, especially for stakeholders that are directly involved in.

SUBMITTER: Suarez-Tangil BD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10132647 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Social perception of mesocarnivores within hunting areas differs from actual species abundance.

Suárez-Tangil Bruno D BD Luna Álvaro Á

PloS one 20230426 4

Analyzing how similar social perception and ecological field data are might help identify potential biases in identifying and managing human-carnivore conflicts. We analyzed the degree of similarity between the perceived and field-measured relative abundance to unveil whether attitude towards carnivores of two groups of stakeholders, namely hunters and other local people, is underpinned or it is instead biased by alternative factors. Our results indicate that, in general, mesocarnivore perceived ...[more]

PMID: 37099611

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study questionWhat is the correlation of serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels between two frequently used laboratory assays?Summary answerA considerable difference was found in serum AMH levels measured with the two different assays, particularly for low AMH values.What is known alreadyAMH is regarded as being a robust, highly sensitive and specific biomarker for ovarian response and has become widely used as the basis for fertility treatment decisions. However, several available assays with different reference values, in addition to inter-laboratory variations and issues of sample stability, make interpretation of the AMH values and their clinical implications complicated.Study design size durationAn observational study was performed including 269 serum samples from infertile women, originating from a RCT conducted in 2013-2016 (www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02013973).Participants/materials setting methodSerum AMH levels analysed with the Modified Beckman Coulter Gen II ELISA assay (Premix method) were compared to AMH levels analysed with the Beckman Coulter Gen II ELISA original assay (Gen II original). All samples were handled identically and analysed with the two assays in a parallel setting.Main results and the role of chanceThe slope of the regression line showed a mean of 18% higher values with the Premix method compared to the Gen II original assay, and more than 40% higher values for AMH levels in the lower range.Limitations reasons for cautionThe Gen II original assay is no longer in clinical use as it has been replaced by the Premix method, which, in turn, recently has been further developed into an automated method.Wider implications of the findingsThe finding of differences in AMH levels between assays is clinically important and may imply an incorrect classification in the assessment of ovarian reserve. The robustness of serum AMH as a marker for ovarian reserve and as a tool for fertility counselling has to be investigated further. There is an urgent need for international standards on interpretation of AMH values for different assays.Study funding/competing interestsFinancial support was received through Sahlgrenska University Hospital (ALFGBG-70940) and the Hjalmar Svensson Research Foundation. None of the authors declares any conflict of interest.

Project description:Accurate estimates of population abundance are a critical component of species conservation efforts in order to monitor the potential recovery of populations. Capture-mark-recapture (CMR) is a widely used approach to estimate population abundance, yet social species moving in groups violate the assumption of CMR approaches that all individuals in the population are detected independently. We developed a closed CMR model that addresses an important characteristic of group-living species-that individual-detection probability typically is conditional on group detection. Henceforth termed the Two-Step model, this approach first estimates group-detection probability and then-conditional on group detection-estimates individual-detection probability for individuals within detected groups. Overall abundance is estimated assuming that undetected groups have the same average group size as detected groups. We compared the performance of this Two-Step CMR model to a conventional (One-Step) closed CMR model that ignored group structure. We assessed model sensitivity to variation in both group- and individual-detection probability. Both models returned overall unbiased estimates of abundance, but the One-Step model returned deceptively narrow Bayesian confidence intervals (BCI) that failed to encompass the correct population abundance an average 52% of the time. Contrary, under the Two-Step model, CI coverage was on average 96%. Both models had similar root mean squared errors (RMSE), except for scenarios with low group detection probability, where the Two-Step model had much lower RMSE. For illustration with a real data set, we applied the Two-Step and regular model to non-invasive genetic capture-recapture data of mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei). As with simulations, abundance estimates under both models were similar, but the Two-Step model estimate had a wider confidence interval. Results support using the Two-Step model for species living in constant groups, particularly when group detection probability is low, to reduce risk of bias and adequately portray uncertainty in abundance estimates. Important sources of variation in detection need to be incorporated into the Two-Step model when applying it to field data.

Dataset Information

Social perception of mesocarnivores within hunting areas differs from actual species abundance.

Publications

Social perception of mesocarnivores within hunting areas differs from actual species abundance.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets