Pumas <i>Puma concolor</i> as ecological brokers: a review of their biotic relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The puma Puma concolor is the fourth largest wild felid and the most widespread native terrestrial mammal of the Americas. We synthesised published literature documenting the biotic interactions of pumas, in order to: 1) advance our understanding of the ecological roles pumas play in natural systems, and 2) support strategic decision‐making about conservation investments, public education, and whole‐ecosystem conservation management. We divided puma biotic interactions into five categories: 1) diet and prey regulation, 2) fear effects on prey (including trophic cascades), 3) effects via carrion production, 4) effects on other carnivores, and 5) ecosystem services. We reviewed 162 studies that met our search criteria, which described 543 ecological interactions between pumas and 485 other species. Puma diet and prey regulation was the most common research topic. The geographic distribution of research was highly skewed towards the USA and Canada, and research in Tropical moist forests was underrepresented. We found a steep increase in the number of scientific publications exploring the biotic interactions associated with pumas over time, but publications that reported effect sizes or measured the strength of interactions did not increase as quickly. We noted numerous gaps in our knowledge of puma biotic interactions and found few well‐controlled studies of prey fear effects, trophic cascades, or ecosystem services. We conclude that pumas are influential ecological actors in natural systems and important brokers of energy and nutrients throughout ecosystems in the Western Hemisphere, linking disparate species from many trophic levels. Ultimately, we found evidence for investing in and prioritising the protection and restoration of puma populations to conserve biodiversity in the Americas.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".