The Effect of Snowmobile Trails on Coyote Movements Within Lynx Home Ranges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Coyotes ( Canis latrans ) and Canada lynx ( Lynx canadensis ) are sympatric throughout much of the lynx's southern range. Researchers and managers have suggested that the presence of compacted snowmobile trails may allow coyotes to access lynx habitat from which they were previously excluded by deep, unconsolidated snow. This could then allow coyotes to more effectively compete with lynx for snowshoe hares ( Lepus americanus ), the lynx's primary prey. We investigated how coyotes interacted with compacted snowmobile trails by conducting carnivore track surveys and by snow tracking adult coyotes (4 M, 8 F) in areas of western Montana, USA, with both documented lynx presence and recreational snowmobile use. Coyotes remained in lynx habitat having deep snow throughout the winter months. They used compacted snowmobile trails for 7.69% of their travel distance and traveled on them for a median distance of 124 m. Coyotes used compacted forest roads (5.66% of total travel) and uncompacted forest roads (4.62% of total travel) similarly. Coyotes did not travel closer to compacted snowmobile trails than random expectation (coyote x̄ distance from compacted trails = 368 m, random expectation = 339 m) and the distance they traveled from these trails did not vary with daily, monthly, or yearly changes in snow supportiveness or depth. However, they strongly selected for naturally shallower and more supportive snow surfaces when traveling off compacted snowmobile trails. Coyotes were primarily scavengers in winter (snowshoe hare kills composed 3% of coyote feed sites) and did not forage closer to compacted snowmobile trails than random expectation. The overall influence of snowmobile trails on coyote movements and foraging success during winter appeared to be minimal on our study area. The results of this study will allow land managers to better assess the effects of snow‐compacting activities on coyotes and lynx.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".