MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2283721110 · doi:10.14288/1.0069052

Small mammal abundance, habitat selection, and movement patterns in shrub-steppe habitat in British Columbia's Okanagan Valley

2010· article· en· W2283721110 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Natalie Melaschenko

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHabitatGeographyShrubSteppeEcologyAbundance (ecology)ArchaeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study determines the role of vegetation in shaping individual habitat use, tortuosity of movement patterns and patterns of population density of western harvest mice (Reithrodontomys megalotis), Great Basin pocket mice (Perognathus parvus) and deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) in British Columbia’s Okanagan Valley. The former two mice are considered at risk in British Columbia due to loss or alteration of native habitat by human development and invasive species such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). The objectives of this study were: 1) to determine the effects of cheatgrass on small mammal abundance and habitat use; 2) to use fractal analyses of path tortuosity to assess the spatial scales at which mice perceive their environment and; 3) to determine the role of vegetation and population density in shaping movement patterns. Trapping and tracking were conducted in 2008 in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia at the northern reaches of the Great Basin ecosystem on 12 sites spanning a gradient of cheatgrass cover. Habitat use and movement patterns were delineated by powdering mice with fluorescent pigment and following their trails. In the fall, the average population density per 1-hectare site was 18.0 ± 4.5 Great Basin pocket mice, 0.21 ± 0.08 deer mice and 0.08 ± 0.02 western harvest mice, while in the summer only Great Basin pocket mice were trapped (8.71 ± 3.20). Cheatgrass invasion ranged from 1 to 18 % cover. Cheatgrass abundance was not correlated with the population density of any small mammal species. In the summer, bare ground and shrub cover best-predicted Great Basin pocket mouse density, while in the fall bare ground alone was the best predictor. Great Basin pocket mice selected bare, open habitat. Vegetation was avoided with the exception of annual grasses, mainly comprised of cheatgrass, which Great Basin pocket mice selected. Bare ground in combination with cheatgrass may have provided optimal habitat for movement. Great Basin pocket mouse path tortuosity increased with vegetation cover and population density and decreased with open habitat. The fractal dimension of movement pathways was consistent over the spatial scales measured in this study.

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 score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.153
Teacher spread0.148 · 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→