MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888416241 · doi:10.1002/ecs2.2371

Sex‐specific seasonal variation in puma and snow leopard home range utilization

2018· article· en· W2888416241 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Örjan Johansson, Gary M. Koehler, Geir Rune Rauset, Gustaf Samelius, Henrik Andrén, Charudutt Mishra, Purevjav Lhagvasuren, Tom McCarthy, Matthew Low

Bibliographic record

VenueEcosphere · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBonneville Power AdministrationDisney Conservation FundCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeU.S. Forest ServiceWhitley Fund for NatureColumbus Zoo and AquariumWashington State UniversityWashington Department of Fish and WildlifeNational Science FoundationU.S. Department of TransportationU.S. Department of EnergyBombardier
KeywordsSnow leopardHome rangePredationTerritorialityEcologyBiologyRange (aeronautics)PantheraLeopardSeasonal breederReproductionZoologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Territory size is often larger for males than for females in species without biparental care. For large solitary carnivores, this is explained by males encompassing a set of female territories to monopolize their reproduction during mating (area maximization). However, males are expected to behave more like females outside of breeding, with their area utilization being dependent on the range required to secure food resources (area minimization). To examine how male and female solitary carnivores adjust their spatial organization during the year as key resources (mates and prey) change, we radio‐collared 17 pumas (Puma concolor; nine males and eight females) and 14 snow leopards (Panthera uncia; seven males and seven females) and estimated home range size and overlap on two temporal scales (annual vs. monthly). Contrary to expectation, we found no evidence that males monopolized females (the mean territory overlap between females and the focal male during the mating season was 0.28 and 0.64 in pumas and snow leopards, respectively). Although male–male overlap of annual home ranges was comparatively high (snow leopards [0.21] vs. pumas [0.11]), monthly home range overlaps were small (snow leopards [0.02] vs. pumas [0.08]) suggesting strong territoriality. In pumas, both males and females reduced their monthly home ranges in winter, and at the same time, prey distribution was clumped and mating activity increased. In snow leopards, females showed little variation in seasonal home range size, following the seasonal stability in their primary prey. However, male snow leopards reduced their monthly home range utilization in the mating season. In line with other studies, our results suggest that female seasonal home range variation is largely explained by changes in food resource distribution. However, contrary to expectations, male territories did not generally encompass those of females, and males reduced their home ranges during mating. Our results show that male and female territorial boundaries tend to intersect in these species, and hint at the operation of female choice and male mate guarding within these mating systems.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations52
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcosphereSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207