CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 30Wildlife Ecology and ConservationSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeWildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation

Landscape Analysis of Adult Florida Panther Habitat

Open access
Frakes, Robert A., Belden, Robert C., Wood, Barry E., James, Frederick E.·2015·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0133044PMC PMC4519242
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Historically occurring throughout the southeastern United States, the Florida panther is now restricted to less than 5% of its historic range in one breeding population located in southern Florida. Using radio-telemetry data from 87 prime-aged (≥3 years old) adult panthers (35 males and 52 females) during the period 2004 through 2013 (28,720 radio-locations), we analyzed the characteristics of the occupied area and used those attributes in a random forest model to develop a predictive distribution map for resident breeding panthers in southern Florida. Using 10-fold cross validation, the model was 87.5 % accurate in predicting presence or absence of panthers in the 16,678 km2 study area. Analysis of variable importance indicated that the amount of forests and forest edge, hydrology, and human population density were the most important factors determining presence or absence of panthers. Sensitivity analysis showed that the presence of human populations, roads, and agriculture (other than pasture) had strong negative effects on the probability of panther presence. Forest cover and forest edge had strong positive effects. The median model-predicted probability of presence for panther home ranges was 0.81 (0.82 for females and 0.74 for males). The model identified 5579 km2 of suitable breeding habitat remaining in southern Florida; 1399 km2 (25%) of this habitat is in non-protected private ownership. Because there is less panther habitat remaining than previously thought, we recommend that all remaining breeding habitat in south Florida should be maintained, and the current panther range should be expanded into south-central Florida. This model should be useful for evaluating the impacts of future development projects, in prioritizing areas for panther conservation, and in evaluating the potential impacts of sea-level rise and changes in hydrology.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

A random forest model using 2004–2013 telemetry from 87 adult Florida panthers predicted breeding habitat across a 16,678 km² south Florida study area with 87.5% cross-validated accuracy. It identified 5,579 km² of suitable breeding habitat, 25% on non-protected private land, and concluded remaining habitat is insufficient for a genetically viable population.

Key findings

  • The random forest model had 10-fold cross-validated PCC 87.5%, sensitivity 87.7%, specificity 87.4%, kappa 0.71, and AUC 0.95; out-of-bag PCC was 87.7%.
  • The model identified 5,579 km² of adult/breeding panther habitat; 1,399 km² (25%) was in non-protected private ownership, 5,232 km² (93.8%) fell within the Primary Zone, and 211 km² (3.8%) fell within the Secondary Zone.
  • The most important variables were wetland forest, human population density, forest edge, and dry/wet season water depth. Sensitivity analysis showed human population, roads, and agriculture other than pasture had strong negative effects, while forest cover and forest edge had strong positive effects.
  • Median model-predicted probability of presence for the 87 home ranges was 0.81 (females 0.82, n = 52; males 0.74, n = 35), with females selecting slightly higher-quality habitat (p < 0.01). The authors conclude that even at maximum adult density of 2.80 panthers per 100 km², the total would remain below 240 adults and subadults, insufficient for one genetically viable population.

Methods

  • The study area was 16,678 km² in southwest Florida, divided into 1-km² grid cells. Telemetry data from 2004–2013 included 87 prime-aged adult panthers (35 males, 52 females) and 28,720 locations; home ranges were 100% minimum convex polygons, and cells with at least one telemetry point were classified as present, all others as absent.
  • A random forest classification model used 500 trees and 3 variables tried at each split, with 15 explanatory variables: 10 land cover categories plus forest edge, dry season water depth, wet season water depth, human population density, and road density. Cells with model-predicted probability of presence ≥ 0.338 were classified as present; validation used 10-fold cross validation, variable importance, and sensitivity analysis.

Limitations

  • Stated: the model is regionally specific to south Florida and should be used with caution outside the region because of the dominance of wetland habitats there.
  • Stated/defended: the presence-absence design treats undetected cells as true absences; the authors argue this is valid given intensive monitoring, but the pseudo-absence assumption remains.
  • Evident: only an estimated average of 44% (range 26–62%) of the known resident adult panther population was collared and monitored annually during 2004–2013, and telemetry error was within 124–230 m; the authors argue overlap and annual surveys mitigate these issues, but the sample is not a complete census.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0133044

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

8 of 81 cited sources checked · 6 supported · 1 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisereasoning

    Only Kautz et al. and Thatcher et al. attempted to analyze first-order selection (range within the region).

    “only Kautz et al. [7] and Thatcher et al. [10] attempted to analyze the first order selection (range within the region).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [7] R Kautz, 2006, How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther, Biological Conservation source
    • cites [10] CA Thatcher, 2009, A habitat assessment for Florida panther population expansion into central Florida, Journal of Mammalogy source

      In the Study section (page not available in our copy), Thatcher et al. explicitly describe their comparison of actual panther home ranges with randomly distributed home ranges as “2nd-order habitat selection.” That contradicts the citing sentence’s classification of their analysis as first-order selection. The paper also cannot establish the sentence’s claim that only two studies attempted such an analysis. (LLM, conf=0.90)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Three previous resource selection analyses were second-order selections (home ranges within the range).

    “3 were second order selection analyses (home ranges within the range) [6, 7, 10]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [6] JJ Cox, 2006, Florida panther habitat use: new approach to an old problem, Journal of Wildlife Management source
    • cites [7] R Kautz, 2006, How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther, Biological Conservation source
    • cites [10] CA Thatcher, 2009, A habitat assessment for Florida panther population expansion into central Florida, Journal of Mammalogy source
  • Premisecitation

    The primary prey species of the Florida panther in southern Florida are white-tailed deer and wild hogs.

    “The primary prey species of the Florida panther in southern Florida are white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginiana) and wild hogs (Sus scrofa) [17, 18].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [17] Maehr DS, Land D, Roof JC, McCown JW. Day beds, natal dens, and activity of Florida panthers. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Southeast Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 1990; 44: 310–318.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [18] GH Dalrymple, 1996, The diet of the Florida panther in Everglades National Park, Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History source

      The Introduction (page not available) reports that deer and wild hogs were the most common prey in southwestern Florida. But the paper’s Everglades results show a clear reliance on deer and very little hog consumption, so the claim does not hold uniformly across southern Florida. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findingown data

    Building separate models for males and females did not improve model accuracy.

    “our preliminary modeling showed that building separate models for males and females did not improve model accuracy.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingnone given

    The final filtered dataset consisted of 87 adult panther home ranges (52 females and 35 males) comprising 28,720 telemetry locations (18,124 for females and 10,596 for males).

    “The final filtered dataset consisted of 87 adult panther home ranges (52 females and 35 males) comprising 28,720 telemetry locations (18,124 for females and 10,596 for males) (Fig 1a).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 20
  • May combine two claims. 38
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Thatcher et al. developed a panther habitat model using the Mahalanobis distance statistic and landscape characteristics within panther home ranges, based on older mid-1990s telemetry and landscape data.

    “Thatcher et al. [10] developed a panther habitat model using the Mahalanobis distance statistic and landscape characteristics within panther home ranges, based on older (mid-1990s) telemetry and landscape data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [10] CA Thatcher, 2009, A habitat assessment for Florida panther population expansion into central Florida, Journal of Mammalogy source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In south Florida, forested habitats have been shown to be important to panthers, although the region is topographically flat.

    “and in south Florida forested habitats have been shown to be important to panthers [4–9, 38], although it is topographically flat [39].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 8 sources checked
    • cites [4] RC Belden, 1988, Panther habitat use in southern Florida, Journal of Wildlife Management source
    • cites [5] DS Maehr, 1995, Landscape features and panthers in Florida, Conservation Biology source
    • cites [6] JJ Cox, 2006, Florida panther habitat use: new approach to an old problem, Journal of Wildlife Management source
    • cites [7] R Kautz, 2006, How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther, Biological Conservation source
    • cites [8] ED Land, 2008, Florida panther habitat selection analysis of concurrent GPS and VHF telemetry data, Journal of Wildlife Management source
    • cites [9] DP Onorato, 2011, Habitat selection by critically endangered Florida panthers across the diel period: implications for land management and conservation, Animal Conservation source
    • cites [38] EJ Comiskey, 2002, Panthers and forests in south Florida: an ecological perspective, Conservation Ecology source
    • cites [39] MJ Duever, 1986, The Big Cypress National Preserve

  • May combine two claims.

    Premiseown data

    To the authors' knowledge, this is the first model to demonstrate the importance of forest edge and water depth in panther habitat use, although other studies have examined related factors such as forest patch size and water regime.

    “To our knowledge, this is the first model to demonstrate the importance of forest edge and water depth in panther habitat use, although other studies have examined related factors such as forest patch size [5, 7, 9, 36] and water regime (duration of flooding) [10].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [5] DS Maehr, 1995, Landscape features and panthers in Florida, Conservation Biology source
    • cites [7] R Kautz, 2006, How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther, Biological Conservation source
    • cites [9] DP Onorato, 2011, Habitat selection by critically endangered Florida panthers across the diel period: implications for land management and conservation, Animal Conservation source
    • cites [36] DS Maehr, 2002, Wide-ranging carnivores and development permits: constructing a multi-scale model to evaluate impacts on the Florida panther, Clean Technology Environmental Policy source
    • cites [10] CA Thatcher, 2009, A habitat assessment for Florida panther population expansion into central Florida, Journal of Mammalogy source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Studies suggested that forest edges provide the necessary structural components for successful hunting by pumas, and that use of edge areas allowed a puma to observe and ambush deer moving between open and forest patches.

    “Studies by Holmes and Laundré [21] and Laundré and Loxterman [22] suggested that forest edges provide the necessary structural components for successful hunting by pumas, and Laundré and Hernández [40] concluded that use of edge areas allowed a puma to observe deer out in the open and to ambush deer as they moved between open and forest patches.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [21] BR Holmes, 2006, Use of open, edge and forest areas by pumas (<italic>Puma concolor</italic>) in winter: Are pumas foraging optimally?, Wildlife Biology source
    • cites [22] JW Laundré, 2007, Impact of edge habitat on summer home range size in female pumas, American Midland Naturalist source
    • cites [40] JW Laundré, 2003, Winter hunting habitat of pumas (<italic>Puma concolor</italic>) in northwestern Utah and southern Idaho, USA, Wildlife Biology source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Research by Burdett et al. indicated that pumas avoided intensively developed suburban or urban areas, showed a negative response to exurban development with variable individual responses, and responded neutrally to rural development with variable individual responses.

    “Research by Burdett et al. [42] indicated that pumas avoided intensively developed suburban or urban areas, showed a negative response to exurban development (but individual responses were variable), and responded neutrally to rural development (again, individual responses were variable).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [42] CL Burdett, 2010, Interfacing models of wildlife habitat and human development to predict the future distribution of puma habitat, Ecosphere source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The study area was 16,678 km2.

    “The 16,678 km2 study area included most of Everglades National Park, Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park, and other public lands, as well as thousands of acres of undeveloped land in private ownership.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    All tested modeling techniques produced similar results, but random forest was more accurate at predicting known panther locations, more straightforward to use, and provided more useful information.

    “Although all of these methods produced similar results, we found RF to be more accurate at predicting known panther locations, to be more straightforward to use, and to provide more useful information than the other methods.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The effect of wetland forest cover was similar at higher P ranges but began to drop off at about 80%.

    “The effect was similar at higher P ranges but began to drop off at about 80%.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Human population density was the most important variable affecting model accuracy, followed by wetland forest.

    “Human population density stood out as the most important variable affecting model accuracy, followed by wetland forest.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Increasing amounts of shrub (both upland and wetland) were predicted to have a positive effect on poor habitat and a negative effect on good habitat.

    “For example, increasing amounts of shrub (both upland and wetland) were predicted to have a positive effect on poor habitat and a negative effect on good habitat.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Upland forest comprised only 5.4% of the study area and was scattered in small patches throughout the northern half.

    “Upland forest, comprising only 5.4%, was scattered in small patches throughout the northern half of the study area.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Upland forest had a consistent positive effect but the maximum gain in P was less than 0.1.

    “Upland forest had a consistent positive effect but the maximum gain in P was less than 0.1.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Sensitivity and specificity were both equal to the PCC at the 0.338 cutoff point.

    “Sensitivity and specificity were both equal to the PCC at this cutoff point.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Forest cover and forest edge had strong positive effects on the probability of panther presence.

    “Forest cover and forest edge had strong positive effects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Grid cells lacking a telemetry location are true absences, not pseudo-absences.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Road density had its maximal effect at the middle ranges of P, but the effect was similar in all ranges.

    “Road density had its maximal effect at the middle ranges of P, but the effect was similar in all ranges.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The kappa statistic (0.711) and AUC (0.95) both indicated high model accuracy in predicting panther presence within the study area.

    “The kappa statistic (0.711) and AUC (0.95) both indicated high model accuracy in predicting panther presence within the study area.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In high quality habitat, P was highest when the average water depth in the dry season was between -2 m and 0 m, and dropped off sharply on either side of this range.

    “In high quality habitat, P was highest when the average water depth in the dry season was between -2 m and 0 m, and dropped off sharply on either side of this range.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The increase in P with wetland forest cover was fairly constant throughout the entire range of forest coverage from 0 to 100%.

    “The increase was fairly constant throughout the entire range of forest coverage from 0 to 100%.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Even the most undeveloped part of the study area is bisected by several major highways including Interstate 75, US 41, and US 29 and also contains many minor roadways.

    “However, even the most undeveloped part of the study area is bisected by several major highways including Interstate 75, US 41, and US 29 and also contains many minor roadways (Figs 1a and 2d).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The model indicated that the probability of adult panther presence is greatest when average water levels are just below the surface and drops off rapidly as water depths increase or decrease.

    “The model indicated that the probability of adult panther presence is greatest when average water levels are just below the surface and drops off rapidly as water depths increase or decrease.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    The Shark River Slough area is currently protected within Everglades National Park.

    “This area is currently protected within Everglades National Park, although rising water levels in this region could sever connections between the two subpopulations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The model predicted an overall average probability of use of 0.086 for the Secondary Zone, compared with 0.455 for the Primary Zone.

    “Our model predicted an overall average probability of use of 0.086 for the Secondary Zone, compared with 0.455 for the Primary Zone.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The remaining lands classified as adult habitat by the model (135.8 km2, 2.4%) are disjunct patches outside the Primary and Secondary zones and are seldom used by panthers, except for transient males.

    “The remaining lands classified as adult habitat by our model (135.8 km2, 2.4%) are disjunct patches outside the Primary and Secondary zones and are seldom used by panthers, except for transient males (Fig 3b).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the model, agriculture excluding pasture and rangelands was of medium importance as a variable and had a pronounced negative effect on panther habitat.

    “In our model, agriculture (excluding pasture and rangelands) was of medium importance as a variable and had a pronounced negative effect on panther habitat.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The extent of upland forest in the study area was 895 km2, and 333 km2 (37%) of that occurred outside the Primary Zone, in isolated patches surrounded by residential or agricultural land cover types.

    “The extent of upland forest in our study area (895 km2) was small, and 333 km2 (37%) of that occurred outside the Primary Zone, in isolated patches surrounded by residential or agricultural land cover types.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Results from this study are consistent with Kautz et al. and Onorato et al. in that, related to forest patch size, the amount of forest edge was a highly predictive variable of adult panther presence.

    “Results from our study are consistent with the latter in that, related to forest patch size, the amount of forest edge was a highly predictive variable of adult panther presence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [7] R Kautz, 2006, How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther, Biological Conservation source
    • cites [9] DP Onorato, 2011, Habitat selection by critically endangered Florida panthers across the diel period: implications for land management and conservation, Animal Conservation source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Of the available breeding habitat, approximately 5232 km2 (93.8%) is contained within the Primary Zone defined by Kautz et al., and 211 km2 (3.8%) is contained within their Secondary Zone.

    “Of the available breeding habitat, approximately 5232 km2 (93.8%) is contained within the Primary Zone defined by Kautz et al. [7], and 211 km2 (3.8%) is contained within their Secondary Zone.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [7] R Kautz, 2006, How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther, Biological Conservation source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The total area occupied by resident adult panthers in south Florida is relatively small, and the entire area is surveyed each year by expert trackers using hounds.

    “In addition, the total area occupied by resident adult panthers in south Florida is relatively small, and the entire area is surveyed each year by expert trackers using hounds (e.g., [13]).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [13] McBride RT, McBride CE, Sensor R. Synoptic survey of Florida panthers 2011. Annual report submitted to U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Agreement #401817G005. Alpine, Texas: Rancher’s Supply; 2012.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The random forest model was validated using 10-fold cross validation.

    “The RF model was validated using 10-fold cross validation [32].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [32] AH Fielding, 1997, A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models, Environmental Conservation source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Areas used and avoided by adult panthers during the 10-year time frame could be accurately identified using these locations within a small margin of error.

    “we felt that areas used and avoided by adult panthers during the 10-year time frame of this study could be accurately identified using these locations within a small margin of error (see below).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Random forest has demonstrated advantages over other statistical classifiers including very high classification accuracy, ranking variables by importance, ability to model complex interactions, and no assumptions about the distribution of predictor or response variables.

    “We used random forest (RF) modeling because of demonstrated advantages of RF over other types of statistical classifiers that include: (1) very high classification accuracy; (2) a method of ranking variables according to their importance; (3) the ability to model complex interactions; and (4) RF makes no assumptions about the distribution of predictor or response variables [30].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [30] DR Cutler, 2007, Random forests for classification in ecology, Ecology source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Only individuals with ≥50 telemetry points were included, to reduce the effects of small sample sizes on home range estimates.

    “After applying the above filters, only individuals with ≥50 telemetry points were included, in order to reduce the effects of small sample sizes on home range estimates [15].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [15] DE Seaman, 1999, Effects of sample size on kernel home range estimates, Journal of Wildlife Management source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The white-tailed deer is an edge species and the amount of edge affects both the quality and quantity of deer.

    “The white-tailed deer is an “edge species” and the amount of edge affects both the quality and quantity of deer [19, 20].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [19] CW Severinghaus, 1969, The deer of North America

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [20] Labisky RG, Boulay MC, Sargent RA, Miller KE, Zultowsky JM. Population dynamics of white-tailed deer in the Big Cypress National Preserve and Everglades National Park. Final report to USDI National Park Service. Gainesville: Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida; 1995.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The 1.0 km grid size was chosen to account for telemetry error (within 124-230 m) and because of interest in analyzing panther habitat characteristics at the landscape scale.

    “This grid size was chosen to account for telemetry error (within 124–230 m [4, 8, 11]) and because of our interest in analyzing panther habitat characteristics at the landscape scale.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [4] RC Belden, 1988, Panther habitat use in southern Florida, Journal of Wildlife Management source
    • cites [8] ED Land, 2008, Florida panther habitat selection analysis of concurrent GPS and VHF telemetry data, Journal of Wildlife Management source
    • cites [11] CS Dees, 2001, Florida panther habitat use in response to prescribed fire, Journal of Wildlife Management source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Kautz et al. identified areas consistently occupied by panthers for 20 years (Primary Zone), adjacent areas likely to be occupied by an expanding panther population (Secondary Zone), and areas that would best facilitate dispersal and population expansion north of the Caloosahatchee River (Dispersal Zone).

    “Kautz et al. [7] identified areas that had been consistently occupied by panthers for 20 years (“Primary Zone”), adjacent areas that would be most likely to be occupied by an expanding panther population (“Secondary Zone”), and areas that would best facilitate dispersal and population expansion north of the Caloosahatchee River (“Dispersal Zone”).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [7] R Kautz, 2006, How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther, Biological Conservation source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In the western states, the distribution of cougars is influenced by the amount of topographic heterogeneity and the quantity of forested cover.

    “In the western states, the distribution of cougars is influenced by the amount of topographic heterogeneity and the quantity of forested cover [37]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [37] SJ Riley, 2001, A landscape analysis of cougar distribution and abundance in Montana, USA, Environmental Management source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    A more widely applicable but still accurate model could probably be built based on the above four factors alone.

    “A more widely applicable but still accurate model could probably be built based on the above four factors alone.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The importance of upland forest in panther habitat selection remains unclear, but forest cover in general is an essential element of panther habitat.

    “Therefore, the importance of upland forest in panther habitat selection remains unclear, but it is obvious that forest cover in general is an essential element of panther habitat.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The Secondary Zone average probability of use is much less than the minimum average value of a panther home range (0.352), suggesting that an adult panther could not establish a home range there.

    “The former is much less than the minimum average value of a panther home range (0.352), suggesting that an adult panther could not establish a home range there.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The model shows that the Secondary Zone lands, and a large portion of the Primary Zone itself, are of little value to support a breeding population of Florida panthers.

    “Our model shows that these lands, and a large portion of the Primary Zone itself, are of little value to support a breeding population of Florida panthers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Although containing little suitable habitat for adult breeding panthers, the Secondary Zone is still important as a refuge for transient, non-breeding panthers.

    “Although containing little suitable habitat for adult, breeding panthers, the Secondary Zone is still important as a refuge for transient, non-breeding panthers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Benson et al. found that panthers tended to select upland hardwoods, pinelands, and mixed wet forests for den sites.

    “Benson et al. [41] found that panthers tended to select upland hardwoods, pinelands, and mixed wet forests for den sites.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [41] JF Benson, 2008, Natal den selection by Florida panthers, Journal of Wildlife Management source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Compensation in the form of habitat protection required by the agency to offset losses due to development has been largely inadequate, because the study suggests that the amount of habitat remaining has been significantly overestimated.

    “As a result, compensation in the form of habitat protection required by the agency to offset losses due to development has been largely inadequate, because our study suggests that the amount of habitat remaining has been significantly overestimated.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The Secondary Zone provides crucial connectivity to unoccupied areas and has the potential to be restored to more productive habitat.

    “It also provides crucial connectivity to unoccupied areas and has the potential to be restored to more productive habitat.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Other studies have suggested that edge might be an important factor in panther habitat selection.

    “Other studies have suggested that edge might be an important factor in panther habitat selection [5, 9].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [5] DS Maehr, 1995, Landscape features and panthers in Florida, Conservation Biology source
    • cites [9] DP Onorato, 2011, Habitat selection by critically endangered Florida panthers across the diel period: implications for land management and conservation, Animal Conservation source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Panthers also selected mixed wet forests as den sites, did not avoid cypress swamps, and even denned in freshwater marsh.

    “However, panthers also selected mixed wet forests as den sites, did not avoid cypress swamps, and even denned in freshwater marsh [41].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [41] JF Benson, 2008, Natal den selection by Florida panthers, Journal of Wildlife Management source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    These areas probably are used by transient males and fit more closely to the definition of the Secondary Zone.

    “These areas probably are used by transient males and fit more closely to the definition of the Secondary Zone [7].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [7] R Kautz, 2006, How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther, Biological Conservation source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Rising water levels in the Shark River Slough region could sever connections between the two subpopulations.

    “This area is currently protected within Everglades National Park, although rising water levels in this region could sever connections between the two subpopulations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The Shark River Slough portion, although not breeding panther habitat, is an important connection between the main subpopulation to the north and the smaller Everglades subpopulation to the south, and thus represents an area that may be essential to panther survival and recovery.

    “The Shark River Slough portion, although not breeding panther habitat, is nevertheless an important connection between the main subpopulation to the north and the smaller Everglades subpopulation to the south, and thus represents an area that may be essential to panther survival and recovery.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Onorato et al. reported often encountering panther kills in forests adjacent to more open habitats.

    “Onorato et al. [9] reported often encountering panther kills in forests adjacent to more open habitats.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [9] DP Onorato, 2011, Habitat selection by critically endangered Florida panthers across the diel period: implications for land management and conservation, Animal Conservation source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Kautz et al. estimated that the effective area of the Secondary Zone is about 34.5% of that in the Primary Zone.

    “Kautz et al. [7] estimated that the effective area of the Secondary Zone is about 34.5% of that in the Primary Zone.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [7] R Kautz, 2006, How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther, Biological Conservation source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Benson et al. suggested that the use of upland forests for denning may be a behavioral mechanism to maximize offspring survival in the flood-prone landscape of south Florida.

    “They suggested that the use of upland forests for denning may be a behavioral mechanism to maximize offspring survival in the flood-prone landscape of south Florida.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [41] JF Benson, 2008, Natal den selection by Florida panthers, Journal of Wildlife Management source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Benson et al. suggested that hydrology and resulting understory conditions in upland habitat types at least partially explain why pinelands and upland hardwoods were strongly selected by females as den sites.

    “Benson et al. [41] suggested that hydrology and resulting understory conditions in upland habitat types at least partially explain why pinelands and upland hardwoods were strongly selected by females as den sites.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [41] JF Benson, 2008, Natal den selection by Florida panthers, Journal of Wildlife Management source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Previous studies also found that panthers selected cypress swamps.

    “Previous studies also found that panthers selected cypress swamps [6, 7].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [6] JJ Cox, 2006, Florida panther habitat use: new approach to an old problem, Journal of Wildlife Management source
    • cites [7] R Kautz, 2006, How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther, Biological Conservation source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Further loss of adult panther habitat is likely to reduce the prospects for survival of the existing population and decrease the probability of natural expansion of the population into south-central Florida.

    “Further loss of adult panther habitat is likely to reduce the prospects for survival of the existing population, and decrease the probability of natural expansion of the population into south-central Florida.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Protection of the remaining breeding habitat in south Florida is essential to the survival and recovery of the subspecies.

    “Therefore, protection of the remaining breeding habitat in south Florida is essential to the survival and recovery of the subspecies and should receive the highest priority by regulatory agencies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The panther population may already be at or close to carrying capacity, yet it is probably below what is required for long-term genetic viability.

    “This population may already be at or close to carrying capacity, yet the panther population is probably below what is required for long-term genetic viability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
57 of 57

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Florida panther is restricted to one breeding population in southern Florida, representing less than 5% of its historic range.

    “Historically occurring throughout the southeastern United States, the Florida panther is now restricted to less than 5% of its historic range in one breeding population located in southern Florida.”
    “Pumas were once widely distributed throughout North and South America, but have been extirpated from the eastern United States except for a small breeding population of Florida panthers in southern Florida”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Grid cells lacking a telemetry location are true absences, not pseudo-absences.

    “Our model was based on a presence-absence design, in which grid cells lacking a telemetry location were assumed to be absences.”
    “we considered our panther dataset to be valid (i.e., true absences)”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation are among the greatest threats to the Florida panther population.

    “Because habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation are among the greatest threats to this population, there is a need for land use planning that incorporates panther conservation and recovery.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Human population and roads generally occur together.

    “Since human population and roads generally occur together”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Conversion of land for urban or agricultural uses eliminates, fragments, and alters panther habitat.

    “The conversion of land for urban or agricultural uses eliminates, fragments, and alters panther habitat.”
5 of 5

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Specificity is reported as equal to PCC but differs in the table

    Minor

    The text says sensitivity and specificity both equaled PCC at the cutoff. The out-of-bag row reports specificity of 87.6%, versus PCC and sensitivity of 87.7%.

  • The habitat cutoff alternates between inclusive and exclusive

    Minor

    The methods classify cells with probability equal to 0.338 as present, while the results classify only cells with probability greater than 0.338 as present.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Maehr DS, Land D, Roof JC, McCown JW. Day beds, natal dens, and activity of Florida panthers. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Southeast Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 1990; 44: 310–318.
  2. Harlow RF, Jones FK Jr. The white-tailed deer in Florida. Tallahassee: Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Technical Bulletin 9; 1965.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Frakes, R. A., Belden, R. C., Wood, B. E., & James, F. E.
Affiliations
  • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (US)
  • National Park Service (US)
Corresponding author
Frakes, Robert A.
ORCID
Frakes, Robert A.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2015-07-29
Volume
10
Issue
7
Pages
e0133044
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0133044
PMC
PMC4519242
OpenAlex
W1826226320
Semantic Scholar
9ee59bc371a4e217a3880f87826fa4c050cc764c
Cited by
30
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
1.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  • National Park Service
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecological Modeling › Species Distribution and Climate Change
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
Keywords
Florida panther, Puma concolor coryi, habitat suitability, home range, habitat selection, species distribution modeling, random forest, forest cover, forest edge, hydrology, human population density, roads, private land ownership, range expansion, sea level rise, South Florida
MeSH terms
Adult, Animals, Conservation of Natural Resources, Ecology, Female, Geography, Humans, Male, Models, Theoretical, Population Density, Ecosystem, Panthera

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-17.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-17.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review