Cougars are recolonizing the midwest: Analysis of cougar confirmations during 1990–2008
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although cougars ( Puma concolor ) were extirpated from much of midwestern North America around 1900, hard evidence of cougar presence has increased and populations have become established in the upper portions of the Midwest during the past 20 years. Recent occurrences of cougars in the Midwest are likely due to dispersal of subadult cougars into the region from established western populations, and may be indicative of further recolonization and range expansion. We compiled confirmed locations of cougars (i.e., via carcasses, tracks, photos, video, and DNA evidence) collected during 1990–2008 in 14 states and provinces of midwestern North America. We separated our study area into 2 regions (east and west), calculated number and types of confirmations, and assessed trends in confirmations during the study period. We recorded 178 cougar confirmations in the Midwest and the number of confirmations increased during the study period ( r = 0.79, P ≤ 0.001). Confirmations by state or province ranged from 1 (Kansas, Michigan, and Ontario) to 67 (Nebraska). Carcasses were the most prevalent confirmation type ( n = 56). Seventy‐six percent of known‐sex carcass confirmations were males, consistent with predominantly male‐biased dispersal in cougars. More confirmations ( P = 0.05) were recorded in the western region $({\bar {x}} = 19.9\pm 22.8/{\rm yr})$ than the eastern region $({\bar {x}} = 4.3\pm 3.1/{\rm yr})$ . Seventy‐nine percent of cougar confirmations occurred within 50 km of highly suitable habitat (i.e., forest areas with steep terrain and low road and human densities). Given the number of cougar confirmations, the increasing frequency of occurrences, and that long‐distance dispersal has been documented via radiocollared individuals, our research suggests that cougars are continuing to recolonize midwestern North America. © 2012 The Wildlife Society.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".