Competition potential between sympatric woodland caribou and wood bison in southwestern Yukon, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wood bison (Bison bison athabascae Rhoads, 1898) were reintroduced to the Aishihik Lake area in the southwestern Yukon, where a population of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou (Gmelin, 1788)) existed. These species co-occurred in nearby Beringia over several hundred thousand years and in the study area throughout most of the Holocene. We hypothesized that resource-selection patterns should differ widely between species at all scales because co-evolution should have resulted in strong patterns of resource partitioning. We compared winter utilization distributions of both species based on aerial survey data and assessed differential resource selection at the scales of landscape and distributional overlap. We also assessed differential resource use within feeding sites and compared late-winter diets of the two species. We found 41% overlap in 95% utilization distributions but only 6% overlap in 50% utilization distributions. Strong differences were measured for use of space and terrain, including elevation, slope, and distance from permanent water bodies. Bison strongly selected for or used graminoids, while caribou selected for or used lichens at each scale. Overlap in winter diet between the two species was 10%. At current densities, exploitative competition in winter between these species is unlikely.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".