MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914884946 · doi:10.1071/wr17151

Incorporating movement patterns to discern habitat selection: black bears as a case study

2019· article· en· W2914884946 on OpenAlex
Dana L. Karelus, J. Walter McCown, Brian K. Scheick, Madelon van de Kerk, Benjamin M. Bolker, Madan K. Oli

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersUniversity of Florida
KeywordsHabitatSelection (genetic algorithm)Movement (music)UrsusEcologyContext (archaeology)GeographyLand coverWetlandWildlifeBiologyLand usePopulationComputer scienceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context Animals’ use of space and habitat selection emerges from their movement patterns, which are, in turn, determined by their behavioural or physiological states and extrinsic factors. Aim The aims of the present study were to investigate animal movement and incorporate the movement patterns into habitat selection analyses using Global Positioning System (GPS) location data from 16 black bears (Ursus americanus) in a fragmented area of Florida, USA. Methods Hidden Markov models (HMMs) were used to discern the movement patterns of the bears. These results were then used in step-selection functions (SSFs) to evaluate habitat selection patterns and the factors influencing these patterns. Key results HMMs revealed that black bear movement patterns are best described by three behavioural states: (1) resting (very short step-lengths and large turning angles); (2) encamped (moderate step-lengths and large turning angles); and (3) exploratory (long step-lengths and small turning angles). Bears selected for forested wetlands and marsh wetlands more than any other land cover type, and generally avoided urban areas in all seasons and when in encamped and exploratory behavioural states. Bears also chose to move to locations farther away from major roads. Conclusions Because habitat selection is influenced by how animals move within landscapes, it is essential to consider animals’ movement patterns when making inferences about habitat selection. The present study achieves this goal by using HMMs to first discern black bear movement patterns and associated parameters, and by using these results in SSFs to investigate habitat selection patterns. Thus, the methodological framework developed in this study effectively incorporates state-specific movement patterns while making inferences regarding habitat selection. The unified methodological approach employed here will contribute to an improved understanding of animal ecology as well as informed management decisions. Implications Conservation plans focused on preserving forested wetlands would benefit bears by not only providing habitat for resting and foraging, but also by providing connectivity through fragmented landscapes. Additionally, the framework could be applied to species that follow annual cycles and may provide a tool for investigating how animals are using dispersal corridors.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.010

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.297 · 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