Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33976813›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2021

Counting Cats: The integration of expert and citizen science data for unbiased inference of population abundance.

Jenni L McDonald, Dave Hodgson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Jenni L McDonaldVeterinary Department, Cats Protection National Cat Centre Haywards Heath UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5050-750X
Dave HodgsonCentre for Ecology and Conservation College of Life and Environmental Sciences University of Exeter Penryn UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4220-2076

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Free-roaming animal populations are hard to count, and professional experts are a limited resource. There is vast untapped potential in the data collected by nonprofessional scientists who volunteer their time to population monitoring, but citizen science (CS) raises concerns around data quality and biases. A particular concern in abundance modeling is the presence of false positives that can occur due to misidentification of nontarget species. Here, we introduce Integrated Abundance Models (IAMs) that integrate citizen and expert data to allow robust inference of population abundance meanwhile accounting for biases caused by misidentification. We used simulation experiments to confirm that IAMs successfully remove the inflation of abundance estimates caused by false-positive detections and can provide accurate estimates of both bias and abundance. We illustrate the approach with a case study on unowned domestic cats, which are commonly confused with owned, and infer their abundance by analyzing a combination of CS data and expert data. Our case study finds that relying on CS data alone, either through simple summation or via traditional modeling approaches, can vastly inflate abundance estimates. IAMs provide an adaptable framework, increasing the opportunity for further development of the approach, tailoring to specific systems and robust use of CS data.

Indexed as

abundancecitizen sciencefalse positiveintegrated abundance modelintegrated modelmisidentificationpopulation size

Identifiers

PMID33976813
PMCPMC8093703

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.