Stress and reproductive hormones reflect inter-specific social and nutritional conditions mediated by resource availability in a bear-salmon system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food availability can influence the nutritional and social dynamics within and among species. Our investigation focused on grizzly and black bears in coastal British Columbia, Canada, where recent and dramatic declines in their primary prey (salmon) raise concerns about potentially negative effects on bear physiology. We examined how salmon availability relates to stress and reproductive hormones in coastal grizzly (n = 69) and black bears (n = 68) using cortisol and testosterone. In hair samples from genotyped individuals, we quantified salmon consumption using stable isotope analysis and hormone levels by enzyme immunoassay. To estimate the salmon biomass available to each bear, we developed a spatially explicit approach based on typical bear home-range sizes. Next, we compared the relative importance of salmon consumption and salmon availability on hormone levels in male bears using an information theoretical approach. Cortisol in grizzly bears was higher in individuals that consumed less salmon, possibly reflecting nutritional stress. In black bears, cortisol was better predicted by salmon availability than salmon consumption; specifically, individuals in areas and years with low salmon availability showed higher cortisol levels. This indicates that cortisol in black bears is more strongly influenced by the socially competitive environment mediated by salmon availability than by nutritional requirements. In both species, testosterone generally decreased with increasing salmon availability, possibly reflecting a less competitive environment when salmon were abundant. Differences between species could relate to different nutritional requirements, social densities and competitive behaviour and/or habitat use. We present a conceptual model to inform further investigations in this and other systems. Our approach, which combines data on multiple hormones with dietary and spatial information corresponding to the year of hair growth, provides a promising tool for evaluating the responses of a broad spectrum of wildlife to changes in food availability or other environmental conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".