Demographic and functional responses of kit foxes to changes in prey abundance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many carnivores exhibit demographic and functional responses to changes in prey abundance. Demographic responses often include changes in population size, litter size, and recruitment of young into the adult population. Functional feeding responses are commonly reported for many carnivore species. We investigated demographic and functional responses of kit foxes ( Vulpes macrotis Merriam, 1888) to changes in prey abundance during 2010–2013 in western Utah, USA. Between 2010 and 2013, litter size averaged 3.9 (±1.4) pups/litter. Survival rates of kit fox pups were 0.07, 0.01, 0.46, and 0.16, respectively, and there was a correlation between pup survival rates and rodent abundance; leporid (family Leporidae Fischer, 1817) abundance did not influence pup survival. There was a functional response as occurrence of kangaroo rat in the diet closely followed changes in kangaroo rat abundance. The occurrence of rodents in kit fox diet followed declines in rodent abundance (excluding Dipodomys spp. Gray, 1841). Leporid consumption by kit foxes was not correlated to leporid density. Kit fox survival was dependent on rodent abundance and more specifically, kangaroo rats. Understanding which population parameters of kit foxes are influenced by prey is critical for the conservation of this native mesocarnivore.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".