Site Occupancy Dynamics of Northern Spotted Owls in the Eastern Cascades, Washington, USA, 1990–2003
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) have received intense research and management interest since their listing as a threatened species by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in 1990. Several spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) response variables have been examined in various investigations, but recent advances in statistical modeling permit evaluations of temporal and spatial variability in site occupancy, local-extinction, and colonization probabilities while incorporating imperfect detection probabilities. Following recent work by other researchers on site occupancy dynamics of spotted owls in Oregon, USA, we evaluated temporal variability of detection, occupancy, local-extinction, and colonization probabilities for spotted owls, as well as potential influences of barred owl (Strix varia) presence on these parameters. We used spotted owl survey data collected from 1990 to 2003 on a study area in the eastern Cascades Mountains, Washington, USA, to compare competing occupancy models from Program PRESENCE using Akaike's Information Criterion. Detection probabilities for individual spotted owls ranged from 0.54 to 0.80 if barred owls were not detected during the survey season and from 0.19 to 0.71 if barred owls were detected during the survey season. Pair detection probabilities ranged from 0.27 to 0.67 if barred owls were not detected during an individual survey and from 0.09 to 0.36 if barred owls were detected during an individual survey. During the study, site occupancy probabilities for spotted owl pairs declined by approximately 50%. For all spotted owls, both singles and pairs, site occupancy probabilities declined moderately during the study. Barred owl presence was negatively associated with spotted owl detection probabilities, and it had a positive association with local-extinction probabilities for all spotted owls, both singles and pairs. Given that our study area has supported higher densities of barred owls for longer periods than other study areas, our results may provide insight into how barred owls have influenced spotted owl site occupancy dynamics in adjacent British Columbia, Canada, or will influence spotted owl site occupancy dynamics in Oregon and California, USA, in the future.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".