Movement and survival parameters of translocated and resident swift foxes <i>Vulpes velox</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Conservation programmes increasingly involve the translocation of animals to reinforce failing populations or establish new ones. To help guide translocation programmes of swift foxes (Vulpes velox) or other imperilled species, we aimed to discern factors affecting translocation success among reintroduced swift foxes in Canada. Post‐release movements characterized three stages. In the initial acclimation phase, foxes moved erratically and quickly distanced themselves from release sites. During the establishment phase, distances from the release site did not change significantly but daily movements were more wide‐ranging than those of concurrently tracked, resident swift foxes. In the final settlement phase, movements of translocated foxes reflected those of resident individuals. Radio‐telemetry showed that survival and reproductive success were highest for swift foxes with small dispersal distances, suggesting that measures should be taken to acclimatize animals to release sites. Since females had lower survival rates than males, translocations should also use a greater proportion of females to establish balanced sex ratios in the population. Translocated juveniles dispersed less far but survived and reproduced as well as translocated adults, suggesting that juveniles can be used to establish translocated foxes in small, protected areas, while minimizing demographic effects on source populations. The fact that survival rates and litter sizes of translocated foxes were similar to those of resident animals indicates that translocation can be an effective reintroduction tool for this endangered species, and possibly other foxes.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".