MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094136796 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.21966

Implications from Monitoring Gopher Tortoises at Two Spatial Scales

2020· article· en· W3094136796 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey M. Goessling, Jonathan Stober, Sybil G. Gyengo, Sharon M. Hermann, Tracey D. Tuberville, Craig Guyer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsRiverview Hospital
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsTortoiseTransectOccupancyMark and recaptureEcologyAbundance (ecology)Population densityGeographyDistance samplingPopulationSpatial ecologyHabitatPopulation sizeBiologyPhysical geographyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Conservation biologists need to effectively monitor species given resource limitations and the inherent challenges of assessing long‐term demographic processes. We assessed gopher tortoise ( Gopherus polyphemus ) abundance at a landscape scale and at the scale of 3 local populations within the Conecuh National Forest (CNF), Alabama, USA, between 1991 and 2017. We collected landscape‐level data from line transect distance sampling arranged uniformly across the CNF during a single season (2011); we obtained data for local populations from long‐term mark‐recapture of individuals at 3 sites selected based on prior knowledge of high density at each. At a landscape scale, we estimated 5,242 (95% CI = 3,538–7,768) tortoises occurred across the approximately 34,000‐ha forest, yielding a density of 0.14–0.32 tortoises/ha. These low densities across the landscape suggest that, on average, management activities across the property have not allowed tortoise populations to retain the social structure needed for long‐term persistence. The 3 local populations, however, contained 25–60 individuals and densities of 1.9–6.9 tortoises/ha. Over the study period, populations at 2 sites were stable and the third experienced significant population growth. Mean annual survival of individuals was 0.89 and invariant across size classes. Overall, line transect distance sampling is important for assessing landscape‐scale abundance of tortoises but may fail to detect local clusters of high‐density sites important for population persistence. Our mark‐recapture efforts at the local scale revealed that small populations on these high‐density sites can exhibit long‐term stability or growth even though they do not meet current established criteria for viability. Improved models that incorporate immigration and emigration and better reflect the dynamics of peripheral populations would assist in determining how such populations best contribute to species recovery and regional conservation targets. © 2020 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207