MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024814202 · doi:10.1071/wr05007

Nest-tree selection by the threatened brush-tailed phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa) (Marsupialia : Dasyuridae) in a highly fragmented agricultural landscape

2006· article· en· W2024814202 on OpenAlexaff
Rodney van der Ree, Andrew F. Bennett, Todd Soderquist

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
FundersDeakin University
KeywordsNest (protein structural motif)Threatened speciesEcologyBiologyNear-threatened speciesDiameter at breast heightNest boxHabitatForestryGeographyPredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The conservation of roosting and nesting resources is of critical concern for many hollow-dependent species around the world. We investigated the nest-tree requirements of the threatened brush-tailed phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa) in a highly cleared agricultural landscape in south-eastern Australia. We documented the physical characteristics of selected nest trees and describe the spatial and temporal patterns of nest-tree use as revealed by radio-tracking. Nine phascogales (seven females, two males) were radio-tracked between March and July 1999 in an area where most woodland habitat is confined to linear strips along roads and streams or small patches and scattered trees in cleared farmland. Female phascogales were monitored for 13–35 days over periods of 5–15 weeks and two males were monitored for 2 and 9 days respectively. A total of 185 nest-tree fixes was collected and all nests occupied by phascogales were in standing trees. Eighty-three nest trees were identified, ranging in diameter at breast height (dbh) from 25 to 171 cm, with a mean dbh for the trees used by each individual phascogale of >80 cm. Phascogales did not discriminate between canopy tree species in selecting nest trees, but showed highly significant selection for trees in the largest size class. All individuals used multiple nest trees, with the seven females occupying an average of 11.4 nest trees from a mean of 25 diurnal locations. The number of nest trees continued to increase throughout the study, suggesting that more would be identified during a longer or more intensive study. Occupied nest trees were located throughout each individual’s home range, highlighting the importance of a continuous spatial distribution of suitable nest trees across the landscape. Nest trees were also located in adjacent farmland up to 225 m from roadside vegetation, demonstrating the value that scattered clumps and even single trees in farmland can have for wildlife conservation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife ResearchSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207