Cougar predation on bighorn sheep in the junction wildlife management area, British Columbia
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Seventeen cougars (Felis concolor) utilizing the Junction Wildlife Management Area (W.M.A.) in central British Columbia were fitted with radio collars. All collared cougars within the area were relocated using ground-based and aerial radio telemetry. Relocations were made daily during intensive field work (December-August), and a minimum of four per week the remainder of the year. General site reconnaissance and direct sampling work from 1986 to 1988 revealed 132 prey species mortalities of which 50 were confirmed as recent cougar kills. Although bighorn ewes and lambs (Ovis canadensis californiana) were not important prey items for the cougars, bighorn rams comprised 77.6% of the total mortality sample and 46.5% of the confirmed cougar kills. Cougars selected rams in greater proportion than would be expected based on the availability of rams in the prey population. Poor post-rut body condition and restricted rear and peripheral vision were factors that increased the rams' vulnerability to cougar predation. Cougar predation rates on bighorn sheep and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus) were determined for two females with kittens. Kill rates varied from 0.7 - 3.0 ungulates/week. Interactions between cougars and coyotes (Canis latrans) at kill sites influenced the cougars' utilization of kills and predation rates. In 200 km² of the 425 km² study area, 130 coyotes were removed over a two-year period. The predation rate of a cougar with three kittens within the coyote removal area averaged 1.1 kills/week while that of a female with two similarly-aged kittens in the non-removal area averaged 2.6 kills/week. Moreover, observations of cougars abandoning kills following harassment by coyotes, suggested that cougar/coyote interactions were an important part of the system. Poor lamb recruitment and a decline in the number of mature rams in the Junction herd are a concern for the Ministry of Environment (MOE) Wildlife Branch. I make two recommendations that address these concerns: 1. Maintain the resident cougar population without removing cougars. Cougars were not important predators of the lamb segment, nor were cougars keying on the older, larger rams. Moreover, removal of the resident cougar population will disrupt the intraspecific and territorial dynamics of the cougar population resulting in an influx of transient cougars. This, in turn, will lead to the Junction system stabilizing at cougar numbers equal to or possibly greater than pre-removal levels. 2. Initiate an alternating, two-year on, two-year off, February-April coyote removal program until Iamb recruitment remains above 20 lambs/100 ewes throughout a four-year cycle. This program is preferable to cougar removal in that coyote removal can be implemented more effectively on a temporally and spatially scale. Coyote removal will result in an increase in lamb recruitment to the bighorn population, including the ram component. Moreover, fewer rams from this increased population will be killed because of lower cougar predation rates that also will result from the decrease in coyote scavenging/displacement pressures.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 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) | 0,001 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».