MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2307871109 · doi:10.14288/1.0090116

Short and long term recovery of plant communities following intensive grazing by caribou (Rangifer tarandus) and muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus) in the Low Arctic of Nunavut, Canada

2009· article· en· W2307871109 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Natalie Griller

Notice bibliographique

RevuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGrazingArcticGeographyEcologyTerm (time)LichenBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Short and long term recovery of plant communities following intensive grazing by caribou (Rangifer tarandus) and muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus) were examined in the Low Arctic of Nunavut, Canada. Animals stranded on small islands resulted in intensively grazed the plant communities, creating natural grazing "experiments." Field work was conducted during July and August of 1997, at four locations. Islands intensively grazed by muskoxen (in 1980, 1984, 1996 and 1997) and by caribou (in 1987) were measured for plant cover and biomass, and current grazing intensity. Regression was used to detect correlations between plant cover and biomass. For most species, cover was a poor predictor of biomass. Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA) clearly separated sites by latitude. Direct gradient ordination (Redundancy Analysis) of each location showed the importance of soil moisture and slope position to vascular plant cover, and current grazing pressure and previous intensive grazing to biomass. Intensive grazing affected cover and biomass for at least one year. After thirteen years recovery of vascular plants was complete. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of all locations showed that cover of all species and functional groups (forbs, graminoids, lichens, shrubs) differed significantly between intensively grazed island and adjacent mainland sites. Cover of all species differed significantly by location and by site. There was no evidence of overcompensation, rather equal or undercompensatory growth occurred. Significant differences were found among intensively grazed islands, adjacent islands and mainland sites. There were significant differences between the islands and between the adjacent island and the mainland sites, but no significant differences between the intensively grazed island and the mainland. Mainland sites had levels of grazing similar to those of the recently, intensively grazed islands. Thus, it is necessary to compare islands, rather than island and mainland sites, to detect grazing effects. No significant differences were found between locations after thirteen years recovery from intensive grazing by muskoxen. Intensive grazing by caribou had longer-term effects than that by muskoxen. Caribou eat lichen whereas muskoxen trample and leave thalli in situ. Ten years after grazing by caribou, non-crustose lichen cover on the intensively grazed island was lower than the mainland, whereas 1 month, 13 and 17 years after grazing by muskoxen, cover was equal or greater than adjacent sites. The fertilization effect of decomposing muskoxen carcasses was evident 13 years after 27 muskoxen were killed at Merkeley Lake. Growth in some species was nutrient limited; cover and biomass of surrounding graminoids and Dryas integrifolia and cover of mosses were greatly increased. Salix spp. were not nutrient limited, and their growth was unaffected by nutrient addition. Without stranded grazers, small islands were protected from summer grazing by ungulates, and grazing levels were lower than on the mainland. With stranded caribou or muskox, however, grazing impacts were greatest on these islands, intermediate on mainland sites, and least on adjacent islands. Upland sites experienced greatest grazing pressure. The recently, intensively grazed sites had temporarily lower species richness. Discrete episodes of intensive grazing on small islands do not appear to cause permanent plant community change.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,278
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,560

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,221
Écart entre enseignants0,208 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Même sujetIndigenous Studies and Ecology→Travaux en français237 207→