Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33273576›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Estimating hunting harvest from partial reporting: a Bayesian approach.

Tom Lindström, Göran Bergqvist

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Tom LindströmDepartment of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Division of Theoretical Biology, Linköping University, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden. tom.lindstrom@liu.se.
Göran BergqvistSwedish Association for Hunting and Wildlife Management, Öster Malma, 611 91, Nyköping, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID33273576
PMCPMC7712918

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.