Ecosystem processes, land cover, climate, and human settlement shape dynamic distributions for golden eagle across the western US
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Species–environment relationships for highly mobile species outside of the breeding season are often highly dynamic in response to the collective effects of ever‐changing climatic conditions, food resources, and anthropogenic disturbance. Capturing dynamic space‐use patterns in a model‐based framework is critical as model inference often drives place‐based conservation planning. We applied dynamic occupancy models to broad‐scale golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos survey data collected annually from 2006 to 2012 during the late summer post‐fledging period in the western US . We defined survey sites as 10 km transect segments with a 1 km buffer on either transect side ( n = 3540). Derived estimates of occupancy were low (4.4–7.9%) and turnover rates – the probability that occupied sites were newly occupied – were high (88–94%), demonstrating that annual transiency in occupancy dominates late summer behavior for golden eagles. Despite low philopatry during late summer, variation in golden eagle occupancy could be explained by a suite of land cover and annual‐varying covariates including gross primary productivity, drought severity, and human disturbance. Our summary of 13 years of predicted occupancy by golden eagles across the western United States identified areas that are consistently used and that may contribute significantly to golden eagle conservation. Restricting development and targeting mitigation efforts in these areas offers practitioners a framework for conservation prioritization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".