Key breeding habitats of threatened golden eagles across Eastern Canada identified using a multi-level, multi-scale habitat selection approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Context In a conservation context, identifying key habitats suitable for reproduction, foraging, or survival is a useful tool, yet challenging for species with large geographic distributions and/or living in remote regions. Objectives The objective of this study is to identify selected habitats at multiple levels and scales of the threatened eastern North American population of golden eagles ( Aquila chrysaetos ). We studied habitat selection at three levels: landscape (second order of selection), foraging (third order of selection), and nesting (fourth order of selection). Methods Using tracking data from 30 adults and 366 nest coordinates spanning over a 1.5 million km 2 area in remote boreal and Arctic regions, we modelled the three levels of habitat selection with resource selection functions using seven environmental features (aerial, topographical, and land cover). We then calculated the relative probability of selection in the study area to identify regions with higher probabilities of selection. Results Eagles selected more for terrain ruggedness index and relative elevation than land cover (i.e., forest cover, distance to water; mean difference in relative selection strength: 1.2 [0.71; 1.69], 95% CI) at all three levels. We also found that the relative probability of selection at all three levels was ~ 25% higher in the Arctic than in the boreal regions. Eagles breeding in the Arctic travelled shorter foraging distances with greater access to habitat with a high probability of selection than boreal eagles. Conclusion Here we found which aerial and topographical features were important for several of the eagles’ life cycle needs. We also identified important areas to monitor and preserve this threatened population. The next step is to quantify the quality of habitat by linking our multi-level, multi-scale approach to population demography and performance such as reproductive success.
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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".