MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105578339 · doi:10.1071/wr08109

DNA genotypes reveal red fox (Vulpes vulpes) abundance, response to lethal control and limitations of contemporary survey techniques

2009· article· en· W2105578339 on OpenAlex
Clive A. Marks, Frank Gigliotti, S. McPhee, Maxine P. Piggott, Andrea C. Taylor, Alistair S. Glen

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicRabies epidemiology and control
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
FundersU.S. Department of Justice
KeywordsVulpesTransectBiologyPopulationGenotypingEcologyContext (archaeology)Abundance (ecology)Veterinary medicineZoologyGenotypeDemographyGeneticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context. Scat genotyping has not been routinely used to measure fox (Vulpes vulpes) abundance and our study sought to provide a benchmark for further technique development and assessment of field methods. Aims. This study sought to provide a comparative assessment of some common methods used to determine fox density and contrast their success with scat DNA genotyping. Methods. DNA recovered from fox scats was used to genotype individual red foxes and determine their abundance at four transects. Population indices were also developed from bait take, scat counts and sand plot tracks using index-manipulation-index (IMI) procedures on the same transects. Known samples of foxes were taken from two treatment transects using cyanide delivered in the M-44 ejector to manipulate the population and to recover foxes at the end of the trial. Key results. Replicated counts on a 41-km-spotlight transect at the field site before and after the population manipulation had low variance and good correlation (r2 = 0.79, P < 0.01). Scat genotypes revealed 54 foxes in eight days and, when combined with biopsy DNA from recovered foxes, a minimum known to be alive (KTBA) density of between 1.6 and 5 foxes km–1 was calculated for the transects. Overall, 15/30 (50%) of all recovered foxes had not been detected by scat genotyping, 23/53 (49%) of KTBA genotypes were detected only once and 5/54 (9.5%) of foxes were found to have moved between two transects. Conclusions. At transects where population manipulation occurred, surviving individuals contributed significantly more scats than at the control transects and some individuals were detected at bait stations at a much greater frequency. This strongly suggested that they had contributed disproportionately to some IMI density estimates that were probably influenced by a change in the activity of some individuals rather than changes in population density alone. At one transect, eight foxes were confirmed to be present by spotlight surveys and were detected by scat and KTBA genotypes, yet were undetected by scat, bait station and sand plot indices. Implications. Scat and other DNA-based survey techniques provide a great deal of information about the identification and movement of individuals and if DNA sampling methods can be made more efficient they have the potential to provide accurate abundance estimates that are independent of the control technique.

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.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.251 · 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