MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171633698 · doi:10.1071/wr12039

Revealing a cryptic life-history stage: differences in habitat selection and survivorship between hatchlings of two turtle species at risk (Glyptemys insculpta and Emydoidea blandingii)

2012· article· en· W2171633698 on OpenAlexaffabout
James E. Paterson, Brad D. Steinberg, Jacqueline D. Litzgus

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHatchlingEcologyBiologyOverwinteringHabitatSurvivorship curvePainted turtleTurtle (robot)PredationPopulationContext (archaeology)Demography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context Turtles are one of the most imperilled taxonomic groups worldwide and information about population ecology is essential to species recovery. Although the spatial ecology and demography of adults of several turtle species have been well studied, little is known about early life stages. The small size, soft shell, and limited mobility of hatchling turtles may cause differences in survivorship and habitat selection compared with adults. Aims We tested the hypothesis that hatchling turtles select habitat as they move away from nests, so as to reduce the risk of predation and desiccation. Methods We examined survivorship, behaviour and habitat selection at two spatial scales in hatchling Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii) and wood turtles (Glyptemys insculpta) in 2009 and 2010, using radio-telemetry in Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada. In addition, temperatures of sites used by hatchlings during winter were compared with those at haphazard stations in various habitats. Key results The mortality rate was high, with 42% of E. blandingii and 11% of G. insculpta hatchlings surviving to winter; most mortality was caused by predation. Most behavioural observations for both species were of individuals hiding under cover. Both species showed evidence of macrohabitat and microhabitat selection as they dispersed from nests towards overwintering sites, and important variables in the models differed between species. Likewise, the adult stages of these two species differ in their macrohabitat specialisation. There was also evidence that hatchlings chose overwintering sites on the basis of temperature. Conclusions Despite significant differences in survivorship between hatchlings and adults, resource selection was similar between these two demographic stages, and conservation plans based on adult habitat use should simultaneously protect hatchlings. Implications Understanding habitat selection by juveniles is important for testing hypotheses about ontogenetic shifts in resource selection and for protecting habitat for species at risk.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife ResearchSame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207