A comparison of coyote ecology after 25 years: 1978 versus 2003 This is Welder Wildlife Foundation contribution No. 651.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most ecological studies of coyotes are of short duration and studies are generally never repeated, thus the opportunity to compare changes in coyote ( Canis latrans Say, 1823) ecology over time is rare. We compared coyote home ranges, activity patterns, age, and diet at the Welder Wildlife Refuge in south Texas between 1978–1979 and 2003–2004 (25 years later). The Minta index of overlap between 1978 and 2003 home ranges was 51.7 ± 7.0 (n = 7), much greater than the Minta index value based on randomized tests (28.7 ± 8.6), indicating similar spatial patterns between time periods. The Minta index was 12.3 ± 6.2 (n = 7) for core areas, whereas the Minta index value based on randomized tests was 4.0 ± 3.0. Although overall diets were similar between 1978 and 2003, we detected some differences in prey species consumed. Activity patterns were similar between the two study periods, with peaks in movement occurring around sunrise and sunset. There was no difference in the mean age between the two populations (P = 0.44, n = 68, t[66] = 2.00). Our findings suggest that population features, such as home-range position and age structure, are similar between extended time periods, while individual-level patterns, such as the prey species consumed and distribution of locations within a home range, are dynamic and may reflect changes in the local environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".