Habitat selection and spatiotemporal interactions of a reintroduced mesocarnivore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Habitat quality and quantity are key factors in evaluating the potential for success of a wildlife translocation. However, because of the difficulty or cost of evaluating these factors, habitat assessments may not include valuable information on important habitat attributes including the abundance and distribution of prey, predators, and competitors. Fishers ( Pekania pennanti ) are one of the most commonly reintroduced carnivores in North America, and they are a species of conservation concern in their western range. We examined the relative importance of landscape features and species interactions in determining habitat use of a reintroduced population of fishers in the southern Cascade Mountains, Washington, USA. We used detections of prey and predators at 134 remote camera stations, remotely sensed forest structure data, and telemetry locations of fishers in a resource selection function to assess the relative importance of prey, predators, and forest structure in fisher habitat selection. Fishers selected habitats based on forest conditions and activity levels of snowshoe hares ( Lepus americanus ), whereas bobcat ( Lynx rufus ) and coyote ( Canis latrans ) activity levels did not directly affect habitat selection. The probability of fisher use increased in older stands, close to recently disturbed stands, and in areas with intermediate levels of hare activity. Bobcat and hare activity levels were positively correlated, and fishers avoided areas with the greatest hare activity, suggesting that fishers may experience a food‐safety tradeoff in the study area. Temporal activity patterns in photo detections indicate that fishers may mediate this danger by avoiding bobcats temporally. Our findings suggest that fishers in Washington prefer habitat mosaics of old and recently disturbed stands where they have greater access to resting structures and hares. Management that maintains mosaics of young and old forest across large landscapes is likely to support fisher recovery. Future reintroduction efforts would benefit from an assessment of prey and predator abundance in proposed reintroduction areas before project initiation. © 2019 The Wildlife Society.
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) | 0.000 | 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".