MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784471794 · doi:10.1071/pc17039

Coyote diet patterns in the Mojave Desert: implications for threatened desert tortoises

2018· article· en· W2784471794 on OpenAlexaff
Brian L. Cypher, Erica C. Kelly, Tory L. Westall, Christine L. Van Horn Job

Bibliographic record

VenuePacific Conservation Biology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsBC Research (Canada)
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
KeywordsTortoisePredationThreatened speciesForagingBiologyEcologyCanisGeneralist and specialist speciesDesert (philosophy)Abundance (ecology)ZoologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coyotes (Canis latrans) are generalist predators and are ubiquitous in North America. Occasionally, predation by coyotes can pose a threat to populations of rare species. We assessed diet patterns of coyotes over a 5-year period (2009–14) in a region of the Mojave Desert where high predation rates on threatened desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) had been reported. Our goal was to identify primary food items for coyotes and to assess the importance of desert tortoises in the diet. Coyotes primarily consumed rabbits and rodents with rabbits being consumed preferentially and rodents, along with secondary foods including various birds, reptiles, arthropods, and fruits, being consumed more opportunistically. In response to low annual precipitation in the last three years of the study, dietary diversity increased, as did use of anthropogenic food items by coyotes. However, coyotes did not seem to be dependent upon anthropogenic items. Remains of desert tortoises occurred in coyote scats at low frequencies (<6%) in all years and seasons, and use of tortoises appeared to be opportunistic as use varied with tortoise abundance. In the portion of the study area where 571 translocated desert tortoises had been released in 2008, the frequencies of tortoise remains in coyote scats were markedly higher in the two years following the releases (7.5% and 8.8%, respectively). The high predation rates on tortoises reported in this area may have resulted from focussed coyote foraging efforts due to the availability of vulnerable individuals (e.g. disoriented and displaced tortoises) as well as higher tortoise densities.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.483

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations27
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePacific Conservation BiologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207