MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399241097 · doi:10.7717/peerj.17497

Identifying risk zones and landscape features that affect common leopard depredation

2024· article· en· W4399241097 on OpenAlexaff
Thakur Silwal, Bijaya Neupane, Nirjala Raut, Bijaya Dhami, Binaya Adhikari, Amit S. Adhikari, Aakash Paudel, Shalik Ram Kandel, Mahamad Sayab Miya

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeopardAffect (linguistics)GeographyEnvironmental resource managementEcologyBiologyEnvironmental sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) is a pressing issue worldwide but varies by species over time and place. One of the most prevalent forms of HWC in the mid-hills of Nepal is human-common-leopard conflict (HLC). Leopard attacks, especially in forested areas, can severely impact villagers and their livestock. Information on HLC in the Gorkha district was scarce, thus making it an ideal location to identify high-risk zones and landscape variables associated with such events. Registered cases were collected and reviewed from the Division Forest Office (DFO) during 2019-2021. Claims from DFO records were confirmed with herders and villagers via eight focus group discussions. To enhance modeling success, researchers identified a total of 163 leopard attack locations on livestock, ensuring a minimum distance of at least 100 meters between locations. Using maximum entropy (MaxEnt) and considering 13 environmental variables, we mapped common leopard attack risk zones. True Skill Statistics (TSS) and area under receiver-operator curve (AUC) were used to evaluate and validate the Output. Furthermore, 10 replications, 1,000 maximum iterations, and 1000 background points were employed during modeling. The average AUC value for the model, which was 0.726 ± 0.021, revealed good accuracy. The model performed well, as indicated by a TSS value of 0.61 ± 0.03. Of the total research area (27.92 km 2 ), about 74% was designated as a low-risk area, 19% as a medium-risk area, and 7% as a high-risk area. Of the 13 environmental variables, distance to water (25.2%) was the most significant predictor of risk, followed by distance to road (16.2%) and elevation (10.7%). According to response curves, the risk of common leopard is highest in the areas between 1.5 to 2 km distances from the water sources, followed by the closest distance from a road and an elevation of 700 to 800 m. Results suggest that managers and local governments should employ intervention strategies immediately to safeguard rural livelihoods in high-risk areas. Improvements include better design of livestock corrals, insurance, and total compensation of livestock losses. Settlements near roads and water sources should improve the design and construction of pens and cages to prevent livestock loss. More studies on the characteristics of victims are suggested to enhance understanding of common leopard attacks, in addition to landscape variables. Such information can be helpful in formulating the best management practices.

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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207