MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416256429 · doi:10.1111/acv.70046

Burrow Persistence and Spatial Distribution of Federally and State‐Protected Gopher Tortoise ( <i>Gopherus polyphemus</i> ) Populations in Southwest Alabama

2025· article· en· W4416256429 on OpenAlexafffund
Robin B. Lloyd, Jeremiah A. Henning, Steven Schultze, David H. Nelson, Adam D. Chupp

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Conservation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoAlabama AudubonUniversity of South Alabama
KeywordsTortoiseBurrowHabitatWildlifeAbundance (ecology)Threatened speciesPopulationKeystone species

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The gopher tortoise ( Gopherus polyphemus ) is an ecosystem engineer and keystone species that has experienced population declines of roughly 80% over the past century due to human‐induced habitat loss. In the state of Alabama, the gopher tortoise was designated as a federally threatened species by the US Fish and Wildlife Service west of the Mobile–Tombigbee River (e.g., Mobile County) in 1987. East of the Mobile–Tombigbee River (e.g., Baldwin County), the gopher tortoise is protected only by state agencies. In this case study, we investigate the persistence of localized gopher tortoise populations in federally protected (Mobile) and federally unprotected (Baldwin) counties across a 28‐year period from initial surveys in 1991–1992 to our recent survey in 2018–2020. In addition, we use GIS modeling and 597 burrow coordinates to develop a novel approach to mapping the potential suitable habitat availability in Mobile and Baldwin counties. Our survey results indicate that gopher tortoise populations have declined in both counties since 1991–92, with populations persisting at ~59% of sites in Mobile County and ~31% of sites in Baldwin County, along with a 9.3% decline in burrow abundance in Mobile County and a 20.8% decline in burrow abundance in Baldwin County. Despite an overall decrease in the total number of burrows since 1991–92, there has been a significant increase in the proportion of active status burrows in both counties (Mobile County, 21% increase, and Baldwin County, 25% increase), most likely the result of remnant populations concentrating into suitable habitat. Our GIS model revealed there is a large amount of suitable habitat (232,657 ha) in southwest Alabama to support growing gopher tortoise populations. However, the overall decline in active site persistence and burrow density is likely indicative of the pressure on tortoise populations from increasing human populations.

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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal ConservationSame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207