Integrated species distribution models reveal spatiotemporal patterns of human–wildlife conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To mitigate human-wildlife conflict it is imperative to know where and when conflict occurs. However, standard methods used to predict the occurrence of human-wildlife conflict often fail to recognize how a species distribution likely limits where and when conflict may happen. As such, methods that predict human-wildlife conflict could be improved if they could identify where conflict will occur relative to species' underlying distribution. To this end, we used an integrated species distribution model that combined presence-only wildlife complaints with data from a systematic camera trapping survey throughout Chicago, Illinois. This model draws upon both data sources to estimate a latent distribution of species; in addition, the model can estimate where conflict is most likely to occur within that distribution. We modeled the occupancy and conflict potential of coyote (Canis latrans), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and raccoon (Procyon lotor) as a function of urban intensity, per capita income, and home vacancy rates throughout Chicago. Overall, the distribution of each species constrained the spatiotemporal patterns of conflict throughout the city of Chicago. Within each species distribution, we found that human-wildlife conflict was most likely to occur where humans and wildlife habitat overlap (e.g., featuring higher-than-average canopy cover and housing density). Furthermore, human-wildlife conflict was most likely to occur in high-income neighborhoods for Virginia opossum and raccoon, despite the fact that those two species have higher occupancy in low-income neighborhoods. As such, knowing where species are distributed can inform guidelines on where wildlife management should be focused, especially if it overlaps with human habitats. Finally, because this integrated model can incorporate data that have already been collected by wildlife managers or city officials, this approach could be used to develop stronger collaborations with wildlife management agencies and conduct applied research that will inform landscape-scale wildlife management.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".