MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The successful introduction of the alpine marmot <i><scp>M</scp>armota marmota</i> in the <scp>P</scp>yrenees, <scp>I</scp>berian <scp>P</scp>eninsula, <scp>W</scp>estern <scp>E</scp>urope

2012· article· en· W1919973909 on OpenAlexaff
Isabel C. Barrio, J. Herrero, C. Guillermo Bueno, Bernat Claramunt López, A. Aldezábal, Ahimsa Campos‐Arceiz, Ricardo García‐González

Bibliographic record

VenueMammal Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarmotHabitatRange (aeronautics)PopulationEcologyBiologyEcosystemGrizzly BearsGeographyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The introduction of non‐native species can pose environmental and economic risks, but under some conditions, introductions can serve conservation or recreational objectives. To minimize risks, introductions should be conducted following the International Union for Conservation of Nature's guidelines and should include an initial assessment and a follow‐up. In 1948, to reduce the predation pressure on Pyrenean chamois Rupicapra pyrenaica pyrenaica by golden eagles Aquila chrysaetos, the alpine marmot Marmota marmota was introduced to the Pyrenees in Western Europe. In successive introductions, about 500 marmots were released, but the fate of the released animals and their impacts on the environment remain largely unstudied. The aim of this study was to assess the success of the introduction of the alpine marmot into the Pyrenees, 60 years after the initial release, and the potential impacts of this species on Pyrenean ecosystems. We reviewed what is known about the marmot populations introduced to the Pyrenees and other populations within their native range in the Alps, particularly in terms of population structure and dynamics, habitat use and potential environmental impacts. The alpine marmot is widely distributed and, apparently, well established in the Pyrenees. Population structure and demographic parameters are similar within and outside the historical distribution range of the species, and habitat suitability is one of the main reasons for the species' success in the Pyrenees. Few researchers have investigated the impacts of alpine marmots in the Pyrenees; thus, those impacts have to be inferred from those observed in the species' native range or in other species of marmot. Introduced alpine marmots are likely to impact on Pyrenean grasslands through grazing and burrowing, have the potential to alter Pyrenean food webs and could act as vectors of parasites and disease. Although the introduction of the alpine marmot in the Pyrenees appears to have been successful, more needs to be known about the effects of the established populations on the environment before informed management actions can be taken in the Pyrenees.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMammal ReviewSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207