The recovery, distribution, and population dynamics of wolves on the Scandinavian peninsula, 1978-1998
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In 1966 the gray wolf (Canis lupus) was regarded as functionally extinct in Norway and Sweden (the Scandinavian peninsula). In 1978 the first confirmed reproduction on the peninsula in 14 years was recorded. During 20 successive winters, from 19781979 to 19971998, the status, distribution, and dynamics of the wolf population were monitored by snow-tracking as a cooperative SwedishNorwegian project. After the 1978 reproduction in northern Sweden, all new pairs and packs were located in south-central parts of the Scandinavian peninsula. Between 1983 and 1990 wolves reproduced each year except 1986, but in only one territory. There was no population growth during this period and the population never exceeded 10 animals. In 1991 reproduction was recorded in two territories. After that there were multiple reproductions each year and the population started growing. In 1998 there were 5072 wolves and six reproducing packs on the peninsula. Between 1991 and 1998 the annual growth rate was 1.29 ± 0.035 (mean ± SD). A minimum of 25 litters were born during the study period. The early-winter size of packs reproducing for the first time was 6.2 ± 1.4 wolves (n = 9), and this decreased with time during the study. The size of packs that had reproduced more than once was 6.4 ± 1.8 wolves (n = 12), and this increased with time over the study period. All but 1 of 30 reported wolf deaths were human-caused. The annual mortality rate was 0.13 ± 0.11, and this decreased with time during the study period. The minimum dispersal distance was 323 ± 212 km for males and 123 ± 67 km for females. Of 10 new wolf territories where breeding occurred, only 1 bordered other, existing territories. The distance from newly established wolf pairs to the nearest existing packs was 119 ± 73 km. Simulation of population growth based on known reproductions and mortalities showed a close similarity to the results from population censuses up to the mid-1990s. To what extent this population is genetically isolated is at present unclear.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».