Spatial segregation and habitat partitioning of bobcat and Canada lynx
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harvest records suggest that the abundance of bobcats ( Lynx rufus) has increased and the leading edge of their distribution has spread northward, while the trailing edge of the Canada lynx ( Lynx canadensis) range has contracted in Ontario, Canada. There has been a debate about whether these closely related felids might compete in areas of sympatry, but there is little research on sympatric populations of bobcat and lynx. Both species are found on the north shore of Lake Huron in Ontario, Canada, which provided an opportunity to investigate their spatial patterns and habitat use. We surveyed snowmobile routes for snow tracks over three winters and estimated probability of occupancy for the two felid species while accounting for detectability. Bobcat and lynx tracks were never found on the same survey route. Bobcat occupancy increased with habitat heterogeneity, whereas lynx occupancy increased with homogeneity. Our results fit with the common assumption of the generalist and specialist natures of bobcat and lynx, respectively. Our findings suggest that bobcats invaded former lynx territory after these areas became vacant. The story of the bobcat and the lynx is one of the loss of a unique, boreal specialist due to anthropogenic change, and eventual replacement by an adaptable generalist.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".