ArticleJournal of mammalogy2017
Mismeasured mortality: correcting estimates of wolf poaching in the United States.
Article in Journal of mammalogy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Uncertainty and precaution in hunting wolves twice in a year: Reanalysis of Treves and Louchouarn: Reply to Stauffer et al.PloS one · 2025Article
- Human-caused wolf mortality persists for years after discontinuation of hunting.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Evaluating how management policies affect red wolf mortality and disappearance.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- Quantifying anthropogenic wolf mortality in relation to hunting regulations and landscape attributes across North America.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Poaching of protected wolves fluctuated seasonally and with non-wolf hunting.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Article
- Evaluating how lethal management affects poaching of Mexican wolves.Royal Society open science · 2021Article
- Biases in the Detection of Intentionally Poisoned Animals: Public Health and Conservation Implications from a Field Experiment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Quantifying the effects of delisting wolves after the first state began lethal management.PeerJ · 2021Article
- Article
- Liberalizing the killing of endangered wolves was associated with more disappearances of collared individuals in Wisconsin, USA.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Mortality of a large wide-ranging mammal largely caused by anthropogenic activities.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Differentiating between regulation and hunting as conservation interventions.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2019Article
- Article
- Reply to comments by OlsonProceedings. Biological sciences · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Measuring rates and causes of mortalities is important in animal ecology and management. Observing the fates of known individuals is a common method of estimating life history variables, including mortality patterns. It has long been assumed that data lost when known animals disappear were unbiased. We test and reject this assumption under conditions common to most, if not all, studies using marked animals. We illustrate the bias for 4 endangered wolf populations in the United States by reanalyzing data and assumptions about the known and unknown fates of marked wolves to calculate the degree to which risks of different causes of death were mismeasured. We find that, when using traditional methods, the relative risk of mortality from legal killing measured as a proportion of all known fates was overestimated by 0.05-0.16 and the relative risk of poaching was underestimated by 0.17-0.44. We show that published government estimates are affected by these biases and, importantly, are underestimating the risk of poaching. The underestimates have obscured the magnitude of poaching as the major threat to endangered wolf populations. We offer methods to correct estimates of mortality risk for marked animals of any taxon and describe the conditions under which traditional methods produce more or less bias. We also show how correcting past and future estimates of mortality parameters can address uncertainty about wildlife populations and increase the predictability and sustainability of wildlife management interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.