A comparison of trapping methodologies and grid size for small mammal research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was designed to compare two distinct trapping systems in their ability to assess small mammal abundance, and to determine the optimal number of days to adequately sample populations. The hypothesis tested was that trapping for short periods of time throughout the field season would yield a more frequent regime of results, compared to trapping for longer periods two or three times a year. The study area was in Summerland, British Columbia, where deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), montane voles (Microtus montanus) and Great Basin pocket mice (Perognathus parvus) were livetrapped in grasslands on six 1-ha replicate grids from June to October 1997. Three of the grids were sampled for two consecutive nights, every three weeks, from June to October. The other three grids were trapped for ten consecutive nights in June, August and October. I suggest that trapping for short periods of time throughout the year or field season will give a better estimate of small mammal population dynamics. A minimum of two and maximum of four night trapping sessions throughout the field season is recommended. An additional objective of this study was to evaluate the differences between estimates of small mammal population densities from grids of different sizes, and to determine the optimal grid size in estimating abundance. The hypothesis tested was that 1-ha grids would be as precise as larger grids in assessing small mammal abundance. Study areas were located in Vernon, Penticton, Kamloops and Prince George, British Columbia. For Experiment A, deer mice and northwestern chipmunks (Tamias amoenus) were trapped on 5-ha grids from May to October 1991 and 1992, and population estimates from 1- and 2-ha grids within the 5-ha grids were compared. For Experiment B, Northwestern chipmunks were sampled on 1- and 9-ha grids from May to August, 1990 and 1991. One ha grids were found to be as precise as 2-and 5-ha grids for density estimation of deer mice and northwestern chipmunks. However, estimates from the 1-ha grids were higher than estimates from the 9-ha grids. Additional research should focus on using identical methodologies and trap type for both 1- and 9-ha grids.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".