MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407039635 · doi:10.3955/046.097.0404

Habitat Use and Distribution of a Recently Discovered Population of Humboldt Martens

2025· article· en· W4407039635 on OpenAlexaff
Holly Gamblin, Keith M. Slauson, Micaela Szykman Gunther

Bibliographic record

VenueNorthwest Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
KeywordsHabitatEcologyPopulationGeographyBiologyZoologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Humboldt marten (Martes caurina humboldtensis) has declined from over 95% of its historic range and currently occurs in just four extant population areas (EPAs). Prior to their listing under the Endangered Species Act, a conservation strategy was developed to identify key conservation needs for this species. This assessment identified an area near the California–Oregon (CA–OR) border as the second EPA in California, yet little was known about the overall distribution or habitat used by this population. This prompted our investigation to provide the first systematic survey of the CA–OR EPA and to assess habitat use using an occupancy modeling framework. Between 2017 and 2018 we surveyed 51 survey units in and adjacent to the EPA and detected martens at 20 units (39.2%). We found that occupancy by martens was most influenced by the amounts of low-elevation late-seral old-growth forest habitat, riparian habitat, and mid-seral forest habitat. The probability of occupancy by martens was greatest in low-elevation (< 800 m, Odds Ratio [OR] = 0.33, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 0.13–0.81) habitat and was positively associated with late-seral forest habitat at the 1,170 m home range scale (OR = 35.31, 95% CI = 1.30–958.07), riparian habitat at the 1,170 m home range scale (OR = 3.20, 95% CI = 1.01–10.1), and marginally by mid-seral forest habitat at the 50 m microhabitat scale (OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 0.95–1.73). Our findings identified habitat characteristics important for explaining the distribution of this understudied population, addressing two of the highest priority research needs identified in the Humboldt marten conservation strategy. Key Points Our surveys detected Humboldt martens in areas beyond the previously mapped California–Oregon extant population area, expanding the known distribution. Martens were detected at 20 of 51 (39%) survey units in and adjacent to the California–Oregon extant population area, suggesting a patchy distribution. Occupancy by martens was most influenced by low-elevation late-seral forest and riparian habitat (home range scale).

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorthwest ScienceSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207