Winter habitat ecology of mountain caribou in relation to forest management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary 1. During winter, mountain caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou live in late successional and old‐growth coniferous forests, where they feed almost exclusively on arboreal lichens. Because some of these forests are also valuable to the forest industry, caribou ecology and forest management remains a central conservation issue in British Columbia. To improve our understanding of caribou habitat use in relation to forest management, we investigated the winter habitat selection patterns of mountain caribou at a range of spatial scales between 1988 and 1993 in the northern Cariboo Mountains, British Columbia. 2. Within winter ranges, caribou selected forest stands dominated by subalpine fir (> 80% Abies lasiocarpa ) and with moderate slopes (16–30%) during early winter (November–December). Although stands with moderately high timber volumes (201–300 m 3 ha −1 ) were used the most during early winter, caribou used these stands in proportion to their availability. Caribou primarily used open‐canopy subalpine fir stands (i.e. parkland) later in the winter (January–March), where low stocking and inoperable timber volumes (< 100 m 3 ha −1 ) reduced direct conflicts with forest harvesting. 3. Characteristics of subalpine forests at early winter caribou foraging areas did not differ significantly from random sites for most variables measured. However, a multivariate analysis indicated that sites used by caribou had slightly less total basal area, more moderate slopes and slightly heavier lichen loads than unused sites. 4. Within early winter foraging areas, caribou chose foraging paths with more trees and greater accessible lichen biomass per standing tree compared with random paths. Although windthrown trees and lichen litterfall were encountered infrequently, caribou rarely rejected these sources of lichen when encountered. 5. The relatively low basal area (27 m 2 ha −1 ) and minor component of economically valuable Engelmann spruce Picea engelmannii (< 20%) at early winter caribou foraging areas suggests less conflicts with forestry compared with other caribou populations in southern British Columbia and Idaho. 6. Selection silvicultural systems may provide solutions to caribou–forestry conflicts, particularly in mid‐elevation subalpine fir stands (1325–1525 m) that may have both operable timber volumes and high caribou numbers.
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) | 0.003 | 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".