MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059004992 · doi:10.1071/wr14196

The effect of research activities and winter precipitation on voiding behaviour of Agassiz’s desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii)

2015· article· en· W2059004992 on OpenAlexaff
Mickey Agha, Mason O. Murphy, Jeffrey E. Lovich, Joshua R. Ennen, Christian R. Oldham, Kathie Meyer, Curtis Bjurlin, Meaghan Austin, Sheila V. Madrak, Caleb L. Loughran, Laura A. Tennant, Steven J. Price

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTortoiseSurvivorship curveWildlifeContext (archaeology)JuvenilePrecipitationEcologyDesert (philosophy)Mark and recaptureAbiotic componentWildlife managementPopulationBiologyDemographyGeographyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context There is little information available on how research activities might cause stress responses in wildlife, especially responses of threatened species such as the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). Aims The present study aims to detect behavioural effects of researcher handling and winter precipitation on a natural population of desert tortoises in the desert of Southwestern United States, over the period 1997 to 2014, through extensive assessments of capture events during multiple research studies, and capture–mark–recapture survivorship analysis. Methods Juvenile and adult desert tortoises were repeatedly handled with consistent methodology across 18 years during 10 study seasons. Using a generalised linear mixed-effects model, we assessed the effects of both research manipulation and abiotic conditions on probability of voiding. Additionally, we used a Cormack–Jolly–Seber model to assess the effects of winter precipitation and voiding on long-term apparent survivorship. Key results Of 1008 total capture events, voiding was recorded on 83 (8.2%) occasions in 42 different individuals. Our top models indicated that increases in handling time led to significantly higher probabilities of voiding for juveniles, females and males. Similarly, increases in precipitation resulted in significantly higher probabilities of voiding for juveniles and females, but not for males. Tortoise capture frequency was negatively correlated with voiding occurrence. Cormack–Jolly–Seber models demonstrated a weak effect of winter precipitation on survivorship, but a negligible effect for both voiding behaviour and sex. Conclusions Handling-induced voiding by desert tortoises may occur during common research activities and years of above average winter precipitation. Increased likelihood of voiding in individuals with relatively low numbers of recaptures suggested that tortoises may have perceived researchers initially as predators, and therefore voided as a defensive strategy. Voiding does not appear to impact long-term survivorship in desert tortoises at this site. Implications This study has demonstrated that common handling practices on desert tortoise may cause voiding behaviour. These results suggest that in order to minimise undesirable behavioural responses in studied desert tortoise populations, defined procedures or protocols must be followed by the investigators to reduce contact period to the extent feasible.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife ResearchSame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207