MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977888049 · doi:10.2193/2008-573

Demographics of an Experimentally Released Population of Elk in Great Smoky Mountains National Park

2009· article· en· W1977888049 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jennifer L. Murrow, Joseph D. Clark, E. Kim Delozier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceParks CanadaRocky Mountain Elk FoundationMinistry of Natural ResourcesU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsUrsusNational parkPopulationVital ratesPredationPopulation growthDemographicsDemographyCervus elaphusPopulation projectionPopulation sizePredatorBiologyPopulation modelGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We assessed the potential for reestablishing elk ( Cervus elaphus ) in Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP), USA, by estimating vital rates of experimentally released animals from 2001 to 2006. Annual survival rates for calves ranged from 0.333 to 1.0 and averaged 0.592. Annual survival for subadult and adult elk (i.e., ≥ 1 yr of age) ranged from 0.690 to 0.933, depending on age and sex. We used those and other vital rates to model projected population growth and viability using a stochastic individual‐based model. The annual growth rate (λ) of the modeled population over a 25‐year period averaged 0.996 and declined from 1.059 the first year to 0.990 at year 25. The modeled population failed to attain a positive 25‐year mean growth rate in 46.0% of the projections. Poor calf recruitment was an important determinant of low population growth. Predation by black bears ( Ursus americanus ) was the dominant calf mortality factor. Most of the variance of growth projections was due to demographic variation resulting from the small population size (n = 61). Management actions such as predator control may help increase calf recruitment, but our projections suggest that the GSMNP elk population may be at risk for some time because of high demographic variation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207