Can snapping turtles be used as an umbrella species for Blanding’s turtles in Ontario, Canada?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surrogates are commonly used in conservation biology to protect as many species as possible with limited resources. Umbrella species are used under the assumption that protection of their habitat simultaneously protects less demanding species. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the potential use of snapping turtles ( Chelydra serpentina , [Linnaeus, 1758]) as an umbrella species for Blanding’s turtles ( Emydoidea blandingii , [Holbrook, 1838]) in Ontario, Canada. We studied habitat selection and spatial overlap of both species at three spatial scales: provincial, population, and location based on sightings reported by the public and on radio-telemetry data. At the provincial and population scales, habitat selection was very similar for both species. Blanding’s turtles have more specific habitat preferences than snapping turtles at the population and location scales. The entire Blanding’s turtle provincial range is encompassed within the snapping turtle provincial range. Snapping turtles are more abundant and easier to detect than Blanding’s turtles. Our study suggests that protection of snapping turtle habitat may also provide protection for Blanding’s turtles.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".