COYOTE PREDATION ON THE RIO GRANDE WILD TURKEY IN THE TEXAS PANHANDLE AND SOUTHWESTERN KANSAS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
From January 2000 to August 2004, we collected data on Rio Grande wild turkey \n(Meleagris gallapavo intermedia) survival, cause-specific mortality, movements, habitat \nuse, roost use, and nesting at 4 study sites (3 in the Texas Panhandle: Matador Wildlife \nManagement Area (MWMA) near Paducah, Texas, Salt Fork of the Red River private \nland holdings (SF) near Clarendon, Texas, and Gene Howe Wildlife Management Area \n(GHWMA) near Canadian, Texas, and 1 site on the Cimarron National Grasslands \n(CNG) near Elkhart, Kansas). During 2000-2002 turkey survival across the 4 sites was \nabout 50% (Ballard et al. 2002). Coyotes were the most frequently cited predators of Rio \nGrande wild turkeys during the first 3 years of our study, identified in 147 out of 313 \n(47%) predation events (Ballard et al. 2003). \nWe wanted to further study the impact of coyotes on adult (= 1 year old) and \njuvenile (6 months to 1 year old) Rio Grande wild turkeys in the Texas Panhandle and \nSouthwestern Kansas, by examining and comparing relative abundances and food habits \nof coyotes at our four study sites. To estimate relative abundance of carnivore species at \nour study sites, we used scent stations as our primary method and scat surveys as a \nsecondary method to corroborate scent stations. We examined the food habits of coyotes at our study sites through scat analysis, using scats collected from our scat surveys. \n \nProportions of prey species were expressed using percent of scats (POS) and percent of \noccurrence(POO). \nScent station visitation by coyotes was not different among sites in any season \n(Fall 2003 ?2 = 7.5067, P = 0.0574; Spring 2003 ?2 = 1.6263, P = 0.6535 Summer 2003 \nx?2 = 4.4270, P = 0.2189 and Winter 2004 ?2 = 1.6442, P = 0.6494, Table 2.1). Raccoons \n(n = 37) were the second-most frequent visitor, and were significantly different among \nsites during each period (Fall 2003 ?2 = 17.2083, P = 0.0006; Spring 2003 ?2 = 8.8584, P= 0.312 Summer 2003 ?2 = 7.9598, P = 0.0468 and Winter 2004 ?2 = 8.6458, P = \n0.0344). Raccoons were detected more frequently at the SF (?2 = 4.5, P = 0.0339) and \nMWMA (?2 = 4.5, P = 0.0339) than the CNG site during the Spring sampling period. \nDuring the Summer period, raccoons were detected more frequently at SF scent stations \nthan at MWMA (?2 = 4.35, P = 0.0370). Raccoons were detected more frequently in the \nFall period at the SF than all other sites (CNG ?2 = 10.28, P = 0.0013; MWMA ?2 = 7.02, \nP = 0.0081; GHWMA ?2 = 5.11, P = 0.0237). During the Winter period, raccoons were \ndetected more frequently at SF (?2 = 5.56, P = 0.0184) and GHWMA (?2 = 4.02, P = \n0.0450) than MWMA. \n \nDiet composition of coyote scats (n = 374) consisted of 27 prey types, primarily \nsmall mammal species (n = 11) and vegetation (n = 8), followed by large mammal \nspecies (n = 3), medium mammal species (n = 2), avian species (n = 2), reptiles (n = 1), \nand insects (n = 1). Prey occurrences were primarily small- [n = 194, 40.76 Percent of \nOccurrence (POO)] and medium-sized (n = 73, 15.33 POO) mammals. The most \ncommon prey occurrence across all sites and seasons was Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus \nfloridanus)(n = 69, 14.50 POO), identified in scats at all sites. White-footed \n(Peromyscus leucopus), and deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), (n = 42, 8.82 POO), \nand hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus, n = 28, 5.88 POO) were the most common \nprey types in the small mammal prey category. We detected avian species (n = 13, 2.73 \nxi POO) in coyote scats at SF (n = 6), GHWMA (n = 2), and CNG (n = 4) sites. Turkey \nwas <1% of all food items, detected only at SF (n = 2) and CNG (n = 1).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».