Determinants of home-range size of imperiled New England cottontails (<i>Sylvilagus transitionalis</i>) and introduced eastern cottontails (<i>Sylvilagus floridanus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In fragmented habitat, population persistence depends in part on patch quality and patch size relative to home-range size. The imperiled New England cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis (Bangs, 1895)) is an obligate user of shrublands in the northeastern United States, a highly fragmented and declining ecosystem. New England cottontail conservation efforts have targeted habitat creation; however, efforts are hindered by a limited knowledge of seasonal space use and its relationship to habitat quality, which could help inform minimum patch-size requirements and implications of competition with non-native eastern cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus (J.A. Allen, 1890)). To address these uncertainties, we modeled home-range areas for both species as a function of season, patch size, sex, and two indicators of forage and cover availability. Home range was generally inversely correlated with measures of forage and cover resources and the response differed by season and species and did not vary with patch size. Instead, inclusion of matrix habitat within home ranges increased with decreasing patch size, placing individuals within smaller patches at a high risk of mortality. These risks may be mitigated in patches >7 ha and absent in patches >20–25 ha where predicted inclusion of matrix is lower or absent.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".