MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413781516 · doi:10.36939/ir.202508281417

Tigers on the Prowl: Determining the Distribution and Habitat Requirements of Eastern Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) in Manitoba

2025· dissertation· en· W4413781516 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTiger salamanderTigerHabitatSalamanderDistribution (mathematics)GeographyFisheryEcologyBiologyComputer scienceLarvaMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Manitoba has the only remaining population of Eastern Tiger Salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum) in Canada. Unfortunately, very little is known regarding its range and habitat in the province. The purpose of this study was to determine key biological and physical habitat requirements that influence the distribution of A. tigrinum in the forested areas of southeastern Manitoba. Fifty-four sites were surveyed in the Sandilands Provincial Forest and surrounding areas using a combination of visual searches and funnel-trapping methods to locate salamander breeding ponds. Much of the Sandilands provides quality habitat for A. tigrinum with little variation between ponds. They are typically sandy, shallow, clear, and most ponds do not contain fish or are unable to sustain a fish population for more than one season. The upland habitat is forested with little agriculture or mining but with some forestry activity. Overall, percent of sand ranged from 85.7% to 99.7%, indicating that the substrate in all ponds is similarly friable. The ponds were mostly small, ranging from 61.38 m2 to 2336.42 m2. All ponds are relatively shallow, ranging in depth from 23 to 300 cm; all sites where salamanders were found at least once were less than 160 cm in depth except for one outlier that is 300 cm. The slope of the bank ranged from -0.06 to -0.80 cm/cm, but salamanders were only found in sites with slopes of less than -0.54 cm/cm. There was a large range in both aquatic vegetation cover (0 to 100% submerged vegetation; 0 to 50% emergent vegetation) and proximity of terrestrial vegetation (minimum distance to forest 0 to 23 m, maximum distance to forest 0 to 312 m; % of shoreline vegetated (0 to 100%), although both ponds with and without salamanders had similar ranges for these vegetation variables (above). Even with the relative homogeneity of the landscape in Sandilands, salamander larvae are not found in all ponds. The results of the analysis identified two key environmental variables: salamanders were more likely to be found in ponds with no fish and with low TDS. Of the 54 total sites, 13 sites had fish present, and of those 13 sites, zero had salamanders present in more than one year. The concentration of TDS in the ponds (the critical value for the split was 207 ppm TDS) also impacted salamander presence. In ponds with high concentrations of TDS (n = 13), approximately nine sites did not have salamanders, while zero sites had salamanders in only one year and four sites had salamanders in more than one year. Ponds with lower TDS concentrations (n = 28) had the opposite pattern of salamander presence; five sites did not have salamanders, four had salamanders in only one year while 19 sites had salamanders in more than one year. With global amphibian decline and the increased risk of climate change, knowledge of local populations of salamanders is important for the conservation of the species, informing policy and recovery strategies.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score0.903

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies→French-language works237,207→