Home-range interactions of three sympatric mesopredators in east Texas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial interactions among predators are central to their behavioral ecology. Although coyotes (Canis latrans Say, 1823), bobcats (Lynx rufus (Schreber, 1777)), and raccoons (Procyon lotor (L., 1758)) occur sympatrically throughout much of the USA, little is known about the nature of inter- and intra-specific spatial interactions. We used kernel analysis to estimate home ranges and core areas for these species. We estimated home-range overlap within and among species using the utilization distribution overlap index (UDOI) and percent overlap. Bobcat and coyote home ranges were similar in extent, whereas raccoons had substantially smaller home ranges. Only bobcats displayed seasonal differences in home-range size. Male bobcats had larger home ranges than female bobcats; there was no sex-based differentiation in home range or core area for coyotes or raccoons. Home-range overlaps calculated using percent overlap were consistently larger than UDOI estimates. Percent overlap seemed to exaggerate the extent to which individuals of the same species share space. Bobcats and coyotes shared space more than raccoons did with either bobcats or coyotes, which indicates that raccoons may have avoided areas used by trophically higher ranking mesopredators or that species with similar feeding strategies had lower levels of overlap to avoid competition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".