MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7079670208 · doi:10.26108/vgjx-bs62

Genetic relationships, movement patterns, spatial dynamics and diet of the eastern coyote (Canus latrans var.) in Cape Breton Highlands National Park

2015· article· en· W7079670208 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueAcadiaU-DEV · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCanisNational parkCapeRange (aeronautics)Mitochondrial DNANova scotia

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The first North American adult human fatality caused directly by coyotes, coupled with seemingly high levels of aggressive coyote encounters with visitors in Cape Breton Highlands National Park, formed the rationale for this study, which has been funded by Parks Canada. The objective was to determine if coyotes within the park differ ecologically and behaviourally from other regions in northeastern North America, which might explain the heightened aggression toward humans. The eastern coyote originated from coyotes in the west, which expanded their range east and hybridized with Canis lycaon, the eastern wolf. The eastern coyote is larger than its western counterpart and has adapted to live in packs, predating large ungulates, including moose (Alces alces), possibly as a result of this hybridization. This study investigated the degree of wolf mitochondrial DNA in eastern coyotes from the Atlantic Provinces, movement patterns, use of high human use areas and diet of coyotes in Cape Breton Highlands National Park. DNA samples collected from Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Newfoundland coyote's revealed mitochondrial DNA haplotypes characteristic of both C. latrans and C. lycaon with decreasing haplotype diversity consistent with sequential founder events moving from west to east and on islands. Coyotes from Nova Scotia with Eastern Wolf mitochondrial DNA are significantly larger than male eastern coyotes from the same region with coyote mitochondrial DNA. Eleven coyotes had GPS collars attached to investigate their movement patterns. Collared coyotes on the plateau of the park tended to move over larger areas than did coyotes at lower elevation. Human use habitats were avoided more in the community of Chéticamp than in the park, especially on the plateau. Daily movements differed among individuals, however coyotes in the community of Chéticamp moved significantly less during daylight hours compared to animals within the park. Fifty-seven coyote tracks were followed in the snow during the winter of 2013. Their movement paths were analysed using fractal analysis. Coyote paths were significantly straighter than correlated random walks. Path tortuosity was very low but increased with spatial scale, with no discrete breaks in tortuosity at any scale. During the winter, coyotes appeared to move along relatively straight paths scavenging on dead moose. A diet study was conducted to determine what food items coyotes consumed by season and location within the park. Coyotes appear to rely on moose throughout the year with a greater dependency during the winter months. The diversity of prey varied between the lowlands and highlands with the lowlands seeing greater diversity of prey items throughout the year. Several coyotes live within close proximity of Chéticamp. Here they likely access human food available in the form of garbage, but there have been no aggressive human-coyote encounters, and individuals show reduced daytime activity. Within the park, especially on the plateau, coyotes roam over larger areas than they do at low elevations in the vicinity of Chéticamp, they are active during the day, and rely heavily on moose for their diet. This sets the stage for aggressive encounters with humans during the high park visitation period of June to October. There is potential for visitors to directly or indirectly feed the coyotes, potentially habituating them and removing the sense of threat previously associated with interactions with humans.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,696
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,605

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,218
Écart entre enseignants0,195 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAcadiaU-DEV→Même sujetGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping→Travaux en français237 207→