Management implications of habitat selection by whooping cranes (<i>Grus americana</i>) on the Texas coast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Effective habitat management for rare and endangered species requires a thorough understanding of their specific habitat requirements. Although machine learning models have been increasingly used in the analyses of habitat use by wildlife, the primary focus of these models has been on generating spatial predictions. In this study, we used machine learning models in combination with simulated management actions to guide planning and inform managers. We used data from 61 whooping cranes ( Grus americana ) tagged with GPS telemetry collars between 2009 and 2018 near Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in coastal Texas. We included variables based on topography, land use classification, vegetation height, plant phenology, drought, storm surge events, and both wild and prescribed fires. We then built models at multiple scales: population level, home range level, and roosting and daytime within home range level. We simulated responses to the two primary management actions used to enhance whooping crane habitat on Aransas National Wildlife Refuge: prescribed fire and removal of woody vegetation. At the population and home range scales, land use classification variables had the highest importance values, whereas the combined elevation and bathymetry layer was the most important predictor at both roosting and daytime within home range scales. Our findings revealed that the effects of fire, although generally modest, varied spatially. Areas dominated by estuarine wetlands exhibited higher predicted use within the first months after a fire, whereas those dominated by palustrine wetlands were more likely to be avoided in the immediate postfire years. Our simulation of vegetation removal identified the areas on Aransas National Wildlife Refuge where whooping cranes were predicted to benefit the most if vegetation were removed. These techniques can be used by other researchers wanting to examine and predict the effects of potential management actions on target species 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.054 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".