A systematic review into the suitability of urban refugia for the Eurasian red squirrel <i>Sciurus vulgaris</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Urban growth and intensification are projected to increase as the global human population increases. Historically, urban areas have been disregarded as suitable wildlife habitat, but it is now known that these areas can be biodiverse and that wildlife species can adapt to the environmental conditions. One such urban‐dwelling species is the Eurasian red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris , which has suffered population declines in several countries throughout its range in recent decades. The current published literature was systematically reviewed to determine whether or not urban habitats are suitable refugia for red squirrels, through identifying and discussing key topics regarding the urban ecology of red squirrels. Urban environments can support higher population densities of red squirrels than rural areas, probably due to the widespread and reliable provision of anthropogenic supplemental food alongside natural food sources. The availability and quality of urban greenspaces are important determinants of the suitability of urban habitats for red squirrels, as they provide natural food sources and nesting sites. Despite the barriers present in urban landscapes (e.g. roads), red squirrels can still disperse and maintain gene flow at the population level. Road traffic accidents appear to be a significant cause of mortality in some urban red squirrel populations, and seasonal peaks of mortality occur during the autumn months. Diseases (e.g. squirrelpox virus) can also be a significant cause of mortality, although effects differ between populations and depend on whether grey squirrels Sciurus carolinensis are present. Many of the predation events that affect red squirrels appear to be due to free‐ranging domestic and feral cats Felis catus , although there is currently little evidence to suggest that predation is a limiting factor for urban red squirrel populations. We conclude that urban areas can be suitable refugia for red squirrels, provided that high‐quality greenspaces are maintained. Mitigation measures may also be necessary to reduce population mortality and to prevent disease outbreaks.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".