MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2797618920 · doi:10.7939/r3wd3q88b

Grizzly bear population ecology and large carnivore conflicts in southwestern Alberta

2016· article· en· W2797618920 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCarnivoreGeographyEcologyGrizzly BearsPopulationHuman–wildlife conflictUrsusPredationBiologyWildlifeDemographySociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Human-wildlife conflicts are a global conservation challenge. Reserves and protected areas usually do not adequately provide for the space needs of large carnivores, resulting in overlap between carnivore home ranges and private lands. Private lands often can provide valuable habitats, but wherever large carnivores and people share the landscape there is potential for conflict. I reviewed 16 years of records of complaints about grizzly bears, wolves, black bears, and cougars in southwestern Alberta and evaluated temporal and distribution patterns of these complaints. Conflicts were most frequently associated with bears reflecting a diversity of conflict types attributable to their omnivorous diets. In contrast, wolf and cougar incidents were almost exclusively related to killing or injury of livestock. Complaints for both bear species have increased over the past 16 years while cougar and wolf complaints have remained relatively constant. Increasing grizzly bear conflicts could be due to an increasing grizzly bear population. I used non-invasive genetic sampling and spatially explicit capture-recapture methods to estimate grizzly bear density and abundance in southwestern Alberta – a small part of a much larger international population of grizzly bears. I established 899 bear rub objects for bear hair sample collection across the study area by surveying trail networks, using GIS layers, and working with over 70 landowners to identify priority sampling areas. Though yearly variation occurred, I estimated an abundance of approximately 67.4 (95% CI 50.0 – 91.1) resident grizzly bears. However, the number of grizzly bears using the study area was much higher [2013: females = 68.9 (95% CI 58.4 – 97.2), males = 102.6 (95% CI 81.2 – 154.2); 2014: females = 63.0 (95% CI 48.9 – 102.6), males = 108.6 (95% CI 80.8 – 177.0)]. In contrast with my resident bear estimate, these numbers represent the number of bears that southwestern Alberta residents could have encountered, i.e., the total population of bears that had potential to have been involved in conflict. Access to supplemental food sources might have contributed to the population increase. The provincial government fed grizzly bears road-killed ungulates each spring during 1998-2013 attempting to reduce spring predation of livestock by grizzly bears. I evaluated the efficacy of this intercept-feeding program by monitoring 12 feeding locations, and using DNA, I identified 22 grizzly bears (19 males, 3 females) at the intercept-feeding sites – a small portion of the number of bears using the study area. Despite intercept feeding, conflicts between grizzly bears and agriculture have increased at a rate that exceeds the estimated rate of increase in the grizzly bear population. The propensity for a grizzly bear to be develop conflict behaviour might be a result of social learning between mothers and cubs, genetic inheritance, or both learning and inheritance. In addition to hair samples collected from rub objects, I targeted private agricultural lands for additional hair samples at grizzly bear incident sites. I completed a parentage analysis to evaluate evidence for social learning versus genetic inheritance of conflict behavior. My results support the social-learning hypothesis but not the genetic-inheritance hypothesis. Offspring from non-problem mothers are not likely to be involved in incidents or human-bear conflicts themselves, whereas offspring are more likely to show conflict behaviour when their mothers are problem bears. Proactive mitigation measures that prevent female bears from becoming problem individuals will likely help to prevent the perpetuation of conflicts through social learning, and will help to reduce grizzly bear-agricultural conflicts in southwestern Alberta.

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.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
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 enseignants0,047
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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 Opus0,005
Tête enseignante GPT0,162
Écart entre enseignants0,157 · 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