MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396931861 · doi:10.1007/s10980-024-01903-2

Machine learning allows for large-scale habitat prediction of a wide-ranging carnivore across diverse ecoregions

2024· article· en· W4396931861 on OpenAlexaffabout
W. Connor O’Malley, L. Mark Elbroch, Katherine A. Zeller, Paul Beier, Meghan M. Beale, Richard A. Beausoleil, Brian N. Kertson, Kyle H. Knopff, K. Kunkel, Benjamin T. Maletzke, Quinton Martins, Marc R. Matchett, Christopher C. Wilmers, Heiko U. Wittmer, T. Winston Vickers, Kimberly Sager-Fradkin, Hugh S. Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueLandscape Ecology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsBP (Canada)
FundersRocky Mountain Research StationU.S. Forest ServiceCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeWashington Department of Fish and WildlifeSummerlee FoundationU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsCarnivoreLandscape ecologyRangingHabitatScale (ratio)Nature ConservationEcologyGeographyEnvironmental scienceCartographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Context Resource selection functions are powerful tools for predicting habitat selection of animals. Recently, machine-learning methods such as random forest have gained popularity for predicting habitat selection due to their flexibility and strong predictive performance. Objectives We tested two methods for predicting continental-scale, second-order habitat selection of a wide-ranging large carnivore, the mountain lion ( Puma concolor ), to support continent-wide conservation management, including estimating abundance, and to predict habitat suitability for recolonizing or reintroduced animals. Methods We compared a generalized linear model (GLM) and a random forest model using GPS location data from 476 individuals across 20 study sites in the western USA and Canada and remotely-sensed landscape data. We internally validated models and examined their ability to correctly classify used and available points by calculating area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUC). We performed leave-one-out (LOO) out-of-sample tests of predictive strength on both models. Results Both models suggested that mountain lions select for steeper slopes, areas closer to water, and with higher normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), and against variables associated with human impact. The random forest model (AUC = 0.94) demonstrated that mountain lion habitat can be accurately predicted at continental scales, outperforming the traditional GLM model (AUC = 0.68). Our LOO validation provided similar results (x̄ = 0.93 for the random forest and x̄ = 0.65 for the GLM). Conclusions We found that the added flexibility of the random forest model provided deeper insights into how individual covariates impacted habitat selection across diverse ecosystems. Our LOO analyses suggested that our model can predict mountain lion habitat selection in unoccupied areas or where local data are unavailable. Our model thus provides a tool to support discussions and analyses relevant to continent-wide mountain lion conservation and management including estimating metapopulation abundance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLandscape EcologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207