ArticleScientific reports2020
Estimating hunting harvest from partial reporting: a Bayesian approach.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantifying hunting harvest is essential for numerous ecological topics, necessitating reliable estimates. We here propose novel analytical tools for this purpose. Using a hierarchical Bayesian framework, we introduce models for hunting reports that accounts for different structures of the data. Focusing on Swedish harvest reports of red fox (Vulpes vulpes), wild boar (Sus scrofa), European pine marten (Martes martes), and Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber), we evaluated predictive performance through training and validation sets as well as Leave One Out Cross Validation. The analyses revealed that to provide reliable harvest estimates, analyses must account for both random variability among hunting teams and the effect of hunting area per team on the harvest rate. Disregarding the former underestimated the uncertainty, especially at finer spatial resolutions (county and hunting management precincts). Disregarding the latter imposed a bias that overestimated total harvest. We also found support for association between average harvest rate and variability, yet the direction of the association varied among species. However, this feature proved less important for predictive purposes. Importantly, the hierarchical Bayesian framework improved previously used point estimates by reducing sensitivity to low reporting and presenting inherent uncertainties.
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.