Food supply and poaching limit giraffe abundance in the Serengeti
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The iconic giraffe, an ecologically important browser, has shown a substantial decline in numbers across Africa since the 1990s. In Serengeti National Park, Tanzania, giraffes reached densities of 1.5–2.6 individuals km −2 in the 1970s coincident with a pulse of Acacia tree recruitment. However, despite continued increases in woody cover between the 1980s and the 2000s, giraffe recruitment and survival rates have declined and density has dropped to only 0.3–0.4 giraffes km −2 . We used a decision table to investigate how four extrinsic factors may have contributed to these declines: food supply, predation, parasites, and poaching, which have all been previously shown to limit Serengeti ungulate populations. Lower recruitment likely resulted from a reduction in diet quality, owing to the replacement of preferred trees with unpalatable species, while decreased adult survival resulted from illegal harvesting, which appears to have had a greater impact on giraffe populations bordering the western and northern Serengeti. The Serengeti giraffe population will likely persist at low‐to‐moderate densities until palatable tree species regain their former abundance. Leslie matrix models suggest that park managers should meanwhile redouble their efforts to reduce poaching, thereby improving adult survival.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it