Density and Abundance of Delphinus delphis in Waters South of Samos Island, Greece (Eastern Mediterranean Sea)

The Mediterranean subpopulation of short-beaked common dolphin Delphinus delphis is ranked as endangered on the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Red List because it has sharply declined during the last decades, resulting in sparse and decreasing populations. Monitoring the conservation status of this endangered dolphin species is particularly relevant to fulfil targets under the range of several international agreements. Moreover, estimating the abundance of D. delphis is essential to verify the effectiveness of conservation action to maintain safe population levels in the Mediterranean Sea and to suggest appropriate modifications to limit potential threats. In this regard, a monitoring program of the short-beaked common dolphin in Samos Island (Greece) was carried out from 2016 to 2019, adopting a random line transect sampling method. The overall density and abundance estimates of D. delphis, obtained by applying conventional distance sampling (CDS) on sighting data, were 0.15 individuals/km2 (CV = 13.27%; 95% CI = 0.11–0.19 individuals/km2) and 51 individuals (CV = 13.27%; 95% CI = 40-66 individuals), respectively. Although, a longer time series of sighting data should be collected and a larger area should be investigated to better understand the population trend of D. delphis and its residency pattern, the results contribute to setting up a baseline reference for future assessment of its population in the Eastern Aegean Sea.

Corridors of tolerance through human-dominated landscapes facilitate dispersal and connectivity between populations of African lions Panthera leo

Globally, little is known about the dispersal abilities of carnivores, their survival in non-protected areas, and the connectivity between protected and non-protected populations. More than a decade of sighting data for 496 known African lions Panthera leo, with 189 individuals engaging in dispersing activities plus an exchange of cross-site information, has provided unique insight into connectivity and survival in unprotected and protected areas in Kenya. In particular, three individuals, across two generations residing solely in unprotected landscapes, demonstrated connectivity between three protected areas that, to our knowledge, have not previously been recognized as harbouring connected populations. These observations suggest that unprotected areas and the human communities that reside in them may successfully create corridors of tolerance that facilitate connectivity and the long-term persistence of lion populations, both within and outside protected areas.

Spatial extinction date estimation: a novel method for reconstructing spatiotemporal patterns of extinction and identifying potential zones of rediscovery

The estimation of extinction dates from limited and incomplete sighting records is a key challenge in conservation (when experts are uncertain whether a species has gone extinct) and historical ecology (when the date and mechanism of extinction is controversial).We introduce a spatially-explicit method of interpolating extinction date estimators, allowing users to estimate spatiotemporal surfaces of population persistence from georeferenced sighting data of variable quality.We present the R package spatExtinct, which produces spatially-explicit extinction date surfaces from geolocated sightings, including options for custom randomization schemes to improve accuracy with limited datasets. We use simulations to illustrate the sensitivity of the method to parameterization, and apply the method to identify potential areas where Bachman’s warbler (Vermivora bachmanii) might be rediscovered.Our method, and the spatExtinct package, has the potential to help describe and differentiate different drivers of extinction for historical datasets, and could be used to identify possible regions of population persistence for species with an uncertain extinction status, improving on non-spatial or imprecise methods that are currently in use.

Are extinction opinions extinct?

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.

Are extinction opinions extinct?

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.

Are extinction opinions extinct?

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.