Density‐dependent responses of moose to hunting and landscape change
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract In many areas of the boreal forests and temperate mountains of Canada, resource extraction activities have created forage conditions that are favourable to the growth of moose ( Alces alces ) populations. In turn, these increased moose populations buoy the abundance of wolves ( Canis lupus ), which then have negative impacts on caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ) populations. Consequently, caribou have been declining where increased resource extraction, moose, and wolves occur. To abate unsustainable predation pressure on caribou by wolves, the moose hunting quota was expanded for 17 years to reduce and then stabilize the moose population in the Revelstoke Valley, British Columbia, Canada. However, a reduction in forestry activity paired with habitat protections slowed the early seral conditions that favour moose. Consequently, both hunter‐caused mortality and habitat loss may have been contributing to observed moose declines that occurred during this period. Within this changing regulatory and biophysical landscape, we sought to address two research objectives. First, we evaluated how increasing the moose hunting quota influenced the total yield of harvested animals. We expected that density‐dependent responses by the moose population would bolster the number of harvestable animals on the landscape. Second, we tested how different forest harvest scenarios might influence moose habitat, wolf densities, and thus caribou population growth rates into future decades. We used data from moose GPS collars (39 individuals), eight aerial population surveys, hunter harvest statistics, estimates of carrying capacity thresholds, and forest harvest records. The latter data series spanned 1961–2020 and informed the resource selection function and calculations for our first research objective as well as the predictive modelling for our second research objective. Between 2003 and 2020, we found that the habitat amounts for moose declined by 44.8%. There were 42% more moose harvested under increased moose hunting quotas than were projected to be harvested under a simulated status quo quota. As the moose population declined and stabilized, we observed higher recruitment rates (e.g. calf:cow ratios) that further contributed to the number of harvested moose. Our simulations indicated that the only forest harvesting scenario where moose carrying capacity would be low enough to stabilize caribou population growth rates by 2040 was to cease forest harvesting entirely in 2020. Practical implication: an increased observed moose harvest quota mitigated the negative effects of forestry on caribou, aided in caribou recovery, and struck a balance that also provided food security and recreational opportunities for moose harvesters.
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 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».