Habitat selection of resident and non-resident gray wolves: implications for habitat connectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Habitat selection studies facilitate assessing and predicting species distributions and habitat connectivity, but habitat selection can vary temporally and among individuals, which is often ignored. We used GPS telemetry data from 96 Gray wolves (Canis lupus) in the western Great Lakes region of the USA to assess differences in habitat selection while wolves exhibited resident (territorial) or non-resident (dispersing or floating) movements and discuss implications for habitat connectivity. We used a step-selection function (SSF) to assess habitat selection by wolves exhibiting resident or non-resident movements, and modeled circuit connectivity throughout the western Great Lakes region. Wolves selected for natural land cover and against areas with high road densities, with no differences in selection among wolves when resident, dispersing, or floating. Similar habitat selection between resident and non-resident wolves may be due to similarity in environmental conditions, when non-resident movements occur largely within established wolf range rather than near the periphery or beyond the species range. Alternatively, non-resident wolves may travel through occupied territories because higher food availability or lower human disturbance outweighs risks posed by conspecifics. Finally, an absence of differences in habitat selection between resident and non-resident wolf movements may be due to other unknown reasons. We recommend considering context-dependency when evaluating differences in movements and habitat use between resident and non-resident individuals. Our results also provide independent validation of a previous species distribution model and connectivity analysis suggesting most potential wolf habitat in the western Great Lakes region is occupied, with limited connectivity to unoccupied habitat.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".