MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159906742 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2021-0004

Effects of landscape composition on wetland occupancy by Blanding’s Turtles (<i>Emydoidea blandingii</i>) as determined by environmental DNA and visual surveys

2021· article· en· W3159906742 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Vincent K. Fyson, Gabriel Blouin‐Demers

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWetlandOccupancyEcologyTurtle (robot)Endangered speciesHabitatRange (aeronautics)Local extinctionBiologyGeographyPopulationBiological dispersal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Habitat loss and degradation have led to the extinction of many species worldwide. The endangered Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii (Holbrook, 1838)), a semi-aquatic freshwater turtle, occupies a wide range of wetlands and landscapes primarily in southeastern Canada and the Great Lakes region of the United States. We explored whether the probability of wetland occupancy by Blanding’s Turtles is affected by the surrounding landscape. We used visual surveys, environmental DNA, and Atlas data to document the presence of Blanding’s Turtles in wetlands in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. We tabulated landscape composition at multiple scales surrounding the wetlands to determine whether landscape composition can predict wetland occupancy. Generally, wetlands surrounded by forest and other undisturbed lands were most likely to harbour Blanding’s Turtles, whereas those surrounded by more human-disturbed lands were least likely to harbour Blanding’s Turtles. Larger wetlands and a high proportion of wetlands in the surrounding landscape also increased the probability of occupancy by Blanding’s Turtles. Finally, older wetlands were more likely to be occupied by Blanding’s Turtles. The ability to estimate a species’ probability of occupancy can aid in conservation efforts, such as critical habitat delineation.

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 score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207