Multiple Scale Den Site Selection by Swift Foxes, <em>Vulpes velox</em>, in Southeastern Colorado
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predation by Coyotes (Canis latrans) is a major source of mortality in Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) populations. Year-round den use by Swift Foxes is likely to be a predator avoidance strategy. Due to the importance of denning to Swift Fox ecology, we recorded den site selection of Swift Foxes in southeastern Colorado. Den site selection was recorded at two scales: microhabitat characteristics at the den and den placement within the home range. The number of den entrances, height and width of each entrance, aspect, hill position, slope, percent rock in soil, vegetative cover, and horizontal foliar density of 42 Swift Fox dens were examined during December 1999 – April 2000. This was compared to the same microhabitat characteristics at 42 random sites within Swift Fox home ranges to determine if Swift Foxes were using site characteristics according to their availability. Our results indicated that Swift Foxes were not highly selective of den sites based on the microhabitat characteristics evaluated in this study, although Swift Foxes selected areas of intermediate rock percentages. In addition, Swift Foxes were radio-tracked throughout the sample period and the location and frequency of use of known dens were recorded. Within the core area of home ranges, Swift Foxes used more dens (mean = 3.51 ± 1.70 (SD)), and had a higher frequency of use of dens (mean = 8.20 ± 6.01) than in the mid-range area (number of dens, mean = 0.90 ± 0.94; frequency, mean = 1.27 ± 2.12) and the boundary area (number of dens, mean = 0.34 ± 0.53; frequency, mean = 0.45 ± 0.93) of the home range. We discuss our results in terms of the importance of dens in facilitating escape from Coyotes. These results illustrate the need for examining den site selection at multiple scales to determine all selection factors, and to provide information useful for recovery and management efforts for this species.
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 | 0.001 | 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".