Seasonal home range size and philopatry in two northern white-tailed deer populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From 1994 to 1997, we compared summer and winter space utilisation by two white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) populations wintering in adjacent areas in southeastern Quebec characterised by deep snow cover. One population lived at low density (10 deer/km 2 ) with access to abundant forage in winter (127 000 twigs/ha), whereas for the other, high-density population (20 deer/km 2 ), forage availability was reduced (68 000 twigs/ha). Because of intraspecific competition for resources, we predicted that deer in the high-density population would have smaller home ranges, would exhibit greater philopatry, and would be more likely to disperse. Deer from both populations occupied summer home ranges that were similar in size (1182 ha for adult males; 1102 ha for adult females; 6033 ha for yearling males; 2528 ha for yearling females) but much larger than home ranges observed elsewhere in North America. The high-density population showed a higher level of philopatry than the low-density population during winter but not during summer. Most deer remained migratory during the study (n = 93) but 4 of the 5 that dispersed were from the high-density population. We speculate on the ability of white-tailed deer populations facing severe winters to adapt to using large home ranges in summer. Our results shed light on how wintering areas appear and expand.
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 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) | 0.010 | 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 teacher head, 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".