MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Resource separation analysis with moose indicates threats to caribou in human altered landscapes

2012· article· en· W2026743042 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wibke Peters, Mark Hebblewhite, Nicholas J. DeCesare, Francesca Cagnacci, Marco Musiani

Bibliographic record

VenueEcography · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWoodland caribouEcologySpatial ecologyGeographyPredationHabitatRange (aeronautics)Spatial distributionCanisBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Species recovery is often impeded by inadequate knowledge on mechanisms of community interactions that cause and exacerbate species endangerment. Caribou and wild reindeer Rangifer tarandus are declining in many regions of their circumpolar range likely because of human‐induced landscape changes. In general, their niche specialization enables Rangifer to survive in nutrient‐poor habitats spatially separated from other ungulates and their shared predators. Research has indicated that shifts in primary prey distribution following human landscape alteration may result in spatial overlap with Rangifer . We studied overlap relationships of woodland caribou R. t. caribou and moose Alces alces , quantified by their differential use of environmental resources, and evaluated the role of human landscape alteration in spatial separation in south‐western Canada. Anthropogenic conversion of old‐growth forests to early seral stands is hypothesized to decrease the spatial separation between caribou and moose, the dominant prey for wolves Canis lupus , contributing to increased caribou mortality. Redundancy analysis (RDA) was first used to examine coarse scale resource separation across our study area. Second, at a finer spatial scale, we used logistic regression to compare resource‐ and spatial separation of sympatric pairs of 17 moose and 17 caribou. Finally, we tested if the frequency of predator‐caused caribou mortalities was higher in regions with higher moose resource use. Although environmental resource separation was strong at the coarser scale, we observed substantial spatial overlap (>50%) at the finer scale. In summer we reported a significant positive relationship between spatial overlap of moose and caribou and the degree of human landscape alteration. Most importantly, locations of caribou mortalities corresponded with areas of high resource use by moose in summer. Thus, consistent with the spatial separation hypothesis, our research suggests that early successional forest stages may decrease spatial separation between caribou and moose, resulting in increased mortality risk for threatened caribou.

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)0.000
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations65
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcographySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207