Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32273986›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2020

Assessing the performance of index calibration survey methods to monitor populations of wide-ranging low-density carnivores.

Egil Dröge, Scott Creel, Matthew S Becker, Andrew J Loveridge, Lara L Sousa, David W Macdonald

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Density and Coexistence Patterns of an Apex Carnivore (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. How "science" can facilitate the politicization of charismatic megafauna counts.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Egil DrögeWildlife Conservation Research Unit Department of Zoology The Recanati-Kaplan Centre University of Oxford Tubney UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2642-3859
Scott CreelZambian Carnivore Programme Mfuwe Zambia.
Matthew S BeckerZambian Carnivore Programme Mfuwe Zambia.
Andrew J LoveridgeWildlife Conservation Research Unit Department of Zoology The Recanati-Kaplan Centre University of Oxford Tubney UK.
Lara L SousaWildlife Conservation Research Unit Department of Zoology The Recanati-Kaplan Centre University of Oxford Tubney UK.
David W MacdonaldWildlife Conservation Research Unit Department of Zoology The Recanati-Kaplan Centre University of Oxford Tubney UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Apex carnivores are wide-ranging, low-density, hard to detect, and declining throughout most of their range, making population monitoring both critical and challenging. Rapid and inexpensive index calibration survey (ICS) methods have been developed to monitor large African carnivores. ICS methods assume constant detection probability and a predictable relationship between the index and the actual population of interest. The precision and utility of the resulting estimates from ICS methods have been questioned. We assessed the performance of one ICS method for large carnivores-track counts-with data from two long-term studies of African lion populations. We conducted Monte Carlo simulation of intersections between transects (road segments) and lion movement paths (from GPS collar data) at varying survey intensities. Then, using the track count method we estimated population size and its confidence limits. We found that estimates either overstate precision or are too imprecise to be meaningful. Overstated precision stemmed from discarding the variance from population estimates when developing the method and from treating the conversion from tracks counts to population density as a back-transformation, rather than applying the equation for the variance of a linear function. To effectively assess the status of species, the IUCN has set guidelines, and these should be integrated in survey designs. We propose reporting the half relative confidence interval width (HRCIW) as an easily calculable and interpretable measure of precision. We show that track counts do not adhere to IUCN criteria, and we argue that ICS methods for wide-ranging low-density species are unlikely to meet those criteria. Established, intensive methods lead to precise estimates, but some new approaches, like short, intensive, (spatial) capture-mark-recapture (CMR/SECR) studies, aided by camera trapping and/or genetic identification of individuals, hold promise. A handbook of best practices in monitoring populations of apex carnivores is strongly recommended.

Indexed as

carnivoresIUCN criterialionPanthera leopopulation monitoringspoor countsstatistical powertrack counts

Identifiers

PMID32273986
PMCPMC7141012

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.