Habitat selection following recent disturbance: model transferability with implications for management and conservation of moose (<i>Alces alces</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Site-specific variation in relative habitat abundance and disturbance regimes may produce differences in habitat preferences of associated populations. An evaluation of the predictive power of habitat selection models across space would benefit our understanding of the reliability of models of selection and space use in predicting animal occurrence. We used presence–absence data from winter surveys of moose (Alces alces (L., 1758)) to estimate resource selection functions (RSFs) across two study sites using Far North Land Cover updated with recent disturbance from fire and timber harvest. Moose selected foraging habitat (e.g., deciduous land cover) and for increasing deciduous foliage cover (ΔNDVI, i.e., the difference in the normalized difference vegetation index). Snow depth negatively influenced habitat selection, likely due to increased predation risk and reduced movement and foraging efficiency. Models lost little predictive power when applied to another site based on comparison of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Our results corroborated the current body of knowledge concerning moose habitat selection, i.e., moose preferentially use forest stands dominated by deciduous species, but suggested that moose strongly avoided very recently disturbed areas. Minimal site-specific variation and ROC comparison suggests that RSFs may be extended into novel systems, given adequate consideration for habitat quality and abundance, thereby simplifying management needs of this important species.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".