MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028644412 · doi:10.1890/04-0953

WOLVES INFLUENCE ELK MOVEMENTS: BEHAVIOR SHAPES A TROPHIC CASCADE IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK

2005· article· en· W2028644412 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel Fortin, Hawthorne L. Beyer, Mark S. Boyce, Douglas W. Smith, Thierry Duchesne, Julie S. Mao

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Geological SurveyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsNational parkEcologyTrophic levelTrophic cascadeGeographyBiologyFood web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A trophic cascade recently has been reported among wolves, elk, and aspen on the northern winter range of Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, USA, but the mechanisms of indirect interactions within this food chain have yet to be established. We investigated whether the observed trophic cascade might have a behavioral basis by exploring environmental factors influencing the movements of 13 female elk equipped with GPS radio collars. We developed a simple statistical approach that can unveil the concurrent influence of several environmental features on animal movements. Paths of elk traveling on their winter range were broken down into steps, which correspond to the straight-line segment between successive locations at 5-hour intervals. Each observed step was paired with 200 random steps having the same starting point, but differing in length and/or direction. Comparisons between the characteristics of observed and random steps using conditional logistic regression were used to model environmental features influencing movement patterns. We found that elk movements were influenced by multiple factors, such as the distance from roads, the presence of a steep slope along the step, and the cover type in which they ended. The influence of cover type on elk movements depended on the spatial distribution of wolves across the northern winter range of the park. In low wolf-use areas, the relative preference for end point locations of steps followed: aspen stands > open areas > conifer forests. As the risks of wolf encounter increased, the preference of elk for aspen stands gradually decreased, and selection became strongest for steps ending in conifer forests in high wolf-use areas. Our study clarifies the behavioral mechanisms involved in the trophic cascade of Yellowstone's wolf-elk-aspen system: elk respond to wolves on their winter range by a shift in habitat selection, which leads to local reductions in the use of aspen by elk.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1,365
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207