scholarly journals Assessing uncertainty in sighting records: an example of the Barbary lion

PeerJ ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. e1224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamsin E. Lee ◽  
Simon A. Black ◽  
Amina Fellous ◽  
Nobuyuki Yamaguchi ◽  
Francesco M. Angelici ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Barbary Lion

scholarly journals Examining the Extinction of the Barbary Lion and Its Implications for Felid Conservation

PLoS ONE ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. e60174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon A. Black ◽  
Amina Fellous ◽  
Nobuyuki Yamaguchi ◽  
David L. Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Barbary Lion

scholarly journals Are extinction opinions extinct?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamsin E Lee ◽  
Clive Bowman ◽  
David L Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Change Point ◽  
Fine Scale ◽  
Individual Quality ◽  
Prior Belief ◽  
Probability Of Extinction ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Expensive Process ◽  
Sighting Data ◽  
Barbary Lion

Extinction models vary in the information they require, the simplest considering the rate of certain sightings only. More complicated methods include uncertain sightings and allow for variation in the reliability of uncertain sightings. Generally extinction models require expert opinion, either as a prior belief that a species is extinct, or to establish the quality of a sighting record, or both. Is this subjectivity necessary? We present two models to explore whether the individual quality of sightings, judged by experts, is strongly informative of the probability of extinction: the `quality breakpoint method' and the `quality as variance method'. For the first method we use the Barbary lion as an exemplar. For the second method we use the Barbary lion, Alaotra grebe, Jamaican petrel and Pohnpei starling as exemplars. The `quality breakpoint method' uses certain and uncertain sighting records, and the quality of uncertain records, to establish whether a change point in the rate of sightings can be established using a simultaneous Bayesian optimisation with a non-informative prior. For the Barbary lion, there is a change in subjective quality of sightings around 1930. Unexpectedly sighting quality increases after this date. This suggests that including quality scores from experts can lead to irregular effects and may not offer reliable results. As an alternative, we use quality as a measure of variance around the sightings, not a change in quality. This leads to predictions with larger standard deviations, however the results remain consistent across any prior belief of extinction. Nonetheless, replacing actual quality scores with random quality scores showed little difference, inferring that the quality scores from experts are superfluous. Therefore, we deem the expensive process of obtaining pooled expert estimates as unnecessary and even when used we recommend that sighting data should have minimal input from experts in terms of assessing the sighting quality at a fine scale. Rather, sightings should be classed as certain or uncertain, using a framework that is as independent of human bias as possible.

scholarly journals Genetic diversity of Barbary lion based on genealogic analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 113-118
Author(s):  
Kristína Lehocká ◽  
Jana Hanusová ◽  
Ondrej Kadlečík
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Diversity ◽  
Barbary Lion

scholarly journals “I tawt I taw a puddy tat!": Extinction and uncertain sightings of the Barbary lion

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamsin E Lee ◽  
Simon A Black ◽  
Amina Fellous ◽  
Nobuyuki Yamaguchi ◽  
Francesco Angelici ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bayesian Methods ◽  
Bayesian Model ◽  
As Species ◽  
Barbary Lion

As species become rare and approach extinction, purported sightings can be controversial, especially when scarce management resources are at stake. We report a Bayesian model where we consider the probability that each individual sighting is valid. Obtaining these probabilities clearly requires a strict framework to ensure that they are as representative as possible. We used a process, which has proven to provide accurate estimates from a group of experts, to obtain probabilities for the validation of 35 sightings of the Barbary lion. We considered the scenario where experts are simply asked whether a sighting was valid, as well as when we asked them to score the sighting based on distinguishablity, observer competence, and verifiability. We find that asking experts to provide scores for these three aspects resulted in each sighting being considered more individually. Additionally, since the heavy reliance on the choice of prior can often be the downfall of Bayesian methods, we use an informed prior which changes with time.

scholarly journals Are extinction opinions extinct?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamsin E Lee ◽  
Clive Bowman ◽  
David L Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Change Point ◽  
Fine Scale ◽  
Individual Quality ◽  
Prior Belief ◽  
Probability Of Extinction ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Expensive Process ◽  
Sighting Data ◽  
Barbary Lion

Extinction models vary in the information they require, the simplest considering the rate of certain sightings only. More complicated methods include uncertain sightings and allow for variation in the reliability of uncertain sightings. Generally extinction models require expert opinion, either as a prior belief that a species is extinct, or to establish the quality of a sighting record, or both. Is this subjectivity necessary? We present two models to explore whether the individual quality of sightings, judged by experts, is strongly informative of the probability of extinction: the `quality breakpoint method' and the `quality as variance method'. For the first method we use the Barbary lion as an exemplar. For the second method we use the Barbary lion, Alaotra grebe, Jamaican petrel and Pohnpei starling as exemplars. The `quality breakpoint method' uses certain and uncertain sighting records, and the quality of uncertain records, to establish whether a change point in the rate of sightings can be established using a simultaneous Bayesian optimisation with a non-informative prior. For the Barbary lion, there is a change in subjective quality of sightings around 1930. Unexpectedly sighting quality increases after this date. This suggests that including quality scores from experts can lead to irregular effects and may not offer reliable results. As an alternative, we use quality as a measure of variance around the sightings, not a change in quality. This leads to predictions with larger standard deviations, however the results remain consistent across any prior belief of extinction. Nonetheless, replacing actual quality scores with random quality scores showed little difference, inferring that the quality scores from experts are superfluous. Therefore, we deem the expensive process of obtaining pooled expert estimates as unnecessary and even when used we recommend that sighting data should have minimal input from experts in terms of assessing the sighting quality at a fine scale. Rather, sightings should be classed as certain or uncertain, using a framework that is as independent of human bias as possible.

scholarly journals Are extinction opinions extinct?

PeerJ ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. e3663 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamsin E. Lee ◽  
Clive Bowman ◽  
David L. Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Change Point ◽  
Fine Scale ◽  
Individual Quality ◽  
Prior Belief ◽  
Probability Of Extinction ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Expensive Process ◽  
Sighting Data ◽  
Barbary Lion

Extinction models vary in the information they require, the simplest considering the rate of certain sightings only. More complicated methods include uncertain sightings and allow for variation in the reliability of uncertain sightings. Generally extinction models require expert opinion, either as a prior belief that a species is extinct, or to establish the quality of a sighting record, or both. Is this subjectivity necessary? We present two models to explore whether the individual quality of sightings, judged by experts, is strongly informative of the probability of extinction: the ‘quality breakpoint method’ and the ‘quality as variance method’. For the first method we use the Barbary lion as an exemplar. For the second method we use the Barbary lion, Alaotra grebe, Jamaican petrel and Pohnpei starling as exemplars. The ‘quality breakpoint method’ uses certain and uncertain sighting records, and the quality of uncertain records, to establish whether a change point in the rate of sightings can be established using a simultaneous Bayesian optimisation with a non-informative prior. For the Barbary lion, there is a change in subjective quality of sightings around 1930. Unexpectedly sighting quality increases after this date. This suggests that including quality scores from experts can lead to irregular effects and may not offer reliable results. As an alternative, we use quality as a measure of variance around the sightings, not a change in quality. This leads to predictions with larger standard deviations, however the results remain consistent across any prior belief of extinction. Nonetheless, replacing actual quality scores with random quality scores showed little difference, inferring that the quality scores from experts are superfluous. Therefore, we deem the expensive process of obtaining pooled expert estimates as unnecessary, and even when used we recommend that sighting data should have minimal input from experts in terms of assessing the sighting quality at a fine scale. Rather, sightings should be classed as certain or uncertain, using a framework that is as independent of human bias as possible.

scholarly journals “I tawt I taw a puddy tat!": Extinction and uncertain sightings of the Barbary lion

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamsin E Lee ◽  
Simon A Black ◽  
Amina Fellous ◽  
Nobuyuki Yamaguchi ◽  
Francesco Angelici ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bayesian Methods ◽  
Bayesian Model ◽  
As Species ◽  
Barbary Lion

As species become rare and approach extinction, purported sightings can be controversial, especially when scarce management resources are at stake. We report a Bayesian model where we consider the probability that each individual sighting is valid. Obtaining these probabilities clearly requires a strict framework to ensure that they are as representative as possible. We used a process, which has proven to provide accurate estimates from a group of experts, to obtain probabilities for the validation of 35 sightings of the Barbary lion. We considered the scenario where experts are simply asked whether a sighting was valid, as well as when we asked them to score the sighting based on distinguishablity, observer competence, and verifiability. We find that asking experts to provide scores for these three aspects resulted in each sighting being considered more individually. Additionally, since the heavy reliance on the choice of prior can often be the downfall of Bayesian methods, we use an informed prior which changes with time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document