Spatial segregation of sympatric marten and fishers: the influence of landscapes and species‐scapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Co‐occurring species are rarely considered as a factor influencing habitat selection. However, niche theory predicts that sharing resources, predators, and other interspecific interactions can limit the environmental conditions under which a species may exist. How does the spatial distribution of one species affect that of another within shared landscapes? We tested whether sympatric marten Martes americana and fishers M. pennanti in a mountain landscape in Alberta, Canada exhibit local‐scale spatial segregation, beyond differential habitat selection. We modelled marten and fisher distribution in relation to remotely‐sensed habitat data and species co‐occurrence, using generalized linear models and information‐theoretic model selection. Marten and fishers selected different habitat types and showed different responses to habitat fragmentation. Even after accounting for these differences, the absence of one species significantly explained the occurrence of the other. We conclude that the spatial distribution of marten and fishers influences habitat selection by each other at landscape scales, and hypothesize that this pattern may result from competition in a spatially heterogeneous environment. Species‐habitat models that consider only resources may fail to capture key predictors of species’ occurrence. Reliable prediction and inference requires that ecologists expand from landscapes to also include species‐scapes: a spatial plane of species interactions that combines with resources to drive species’ distributions.
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".