Noninvasive Hair Sampling and Genetic Tagging of Co‐Distributed Fishers and American Martens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Estimation of abundance is important for assessing population responses to management actions. Accurate abundance estimates are particularly critical for monitoring temporal variation following reintroductions when the management goal is to attain population sizes capable of sustaining harvest. Numerous reintroductions have taken place in the Great Lakes region of North America, including efforts to restore extirpated fishers ( Martes pennanti ) and American martens ( M. americana ). We used a DNA‐based noninvasive hair‐snaring method based on one trap design and trapping ‐grid configuration, and evaluated capture—mark—recapture (CMR) analytical approaches to simultaneously estimate population size for co‐distributed fishers and American martens in a 671‐km 2 area of the Ottawa National Forest in the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan, USA. We included harvest as a final recapture period to increase probability of recapture and to evaluate potential violations of geographic closure assumptions. We used microsatellite markers to identify target species, eliminate congener species, and provide individual identity for estimation of abundance. Population estimates for fishers and martens on the study area ranged from 35 to 60 and 8 to 28, respectively. Estimators incorporating harvest data resulted in up to a 40% increase in abundance estimates relative to estimators without harvest. We considered population estimates not including harvest data the most appropriate for the study due to timing of sampling and environmental factors, but inclusion of harvested individuals was shown to be useful as a means to detect violations of the assumption of geographic closure. We suggest improvements on future CMR sampling designs for larger landscape scales of relevance to management through incorporation of habitat or historical harvest data. Noninvasive genetic methods that simultaneously estimate the numerical abundance of co‐distributed species can greatly decrease assessment costs relative to traditional methods, and increase resulting demographic and ecological information.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".