Native prey, not landscape change or novel prey, drive cougar (<i>Puma concolor</i>) distribution at a boreal forest range edge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many large carnivores, despite widespread habitat alteration, are rebounding in parts of their former ranges after decades of persecution and exploitation. Cougars ( Puma concolor ) are apex predator with their remaining northern core range constricted to mountain landscapes and areas of western North America; however, cougar populations have recently started rebounding in several locations across North America, including northward in boreal forest landscapes. A camera‐trap survey of multiple landscapes across Alberta, Canada, delineated a range edge; within this region, we deployed an array of 47 camera traps in a random stratified design across a landscape spanning a gradient of anthropogenic development relative to the predicted expansion front. We completed multiple hypotheses in an information‐theoretic framework to determine if cougar occurrence is best explained by natural land cover features, anthropogenic development features, or competitor and prey activity. We predicted that anthropogenic development features from resource extraction and invading white‐tailed deer ( Odocoileus virgianius ) explain cougar distribution at this boreal range edge. Counter to our predictions, the relative activity of native prey, predominantly snowshoe hare ( Lepus americanus ), was the best predictor of cougar occurrence at this range edge. Small‐bodied prey items are particularly important for female and sub‐adult cougars and may support breeding individuals in the northeast boreal forest. Also, counter to our predictions, there was not a strong relationship detected between cougar occurrence and gray wolf ( Canis lupus ) activity at this range edge. However, further investigation is recommended as the possibility of cougar expansion into areas of the multi‐prey boreal system, where wolves have recently been controlled, could have negative consequences for conservation goals in this region (e.g. the recovery of woodland caribou [ Rangifer tarandus caribou ]). Our study highlights the need to monitor contemporary distributions to inform conservation management objectives as large carnivores recover across North America.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".