MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030411425 · doi:10.1071/wr14134

Mule deer–cattle interactions in managed coniferous forests during seasonal grazing periods in southern British Columbia, Canada

2015· article· en· W2030411425 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pontus M.F. Lindgren, Thomas P. Sullivan

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOdocoileusPinus contortaGrazingHabitatContext (archaeology)Wildlife managementRange (aeronautics)EcologyGeographyUnderstoryStockingWildlifeForageForestryBiologyCanopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context In young forests of the Pacific North-west of North America, the potential impacts of domestic grazing by cattle (Bos taurus) on forest ecosystems and native ungulates such as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) are poorly understood. It is not clear how cattle and deer may interact in young forests used for summer range by both ungulates, and winter range used by deer, where pre-commercial thinning (PCT) and fertilisation enhance both timber and forage. Aims To test the following two hypotheses: (H1) that PCT and repeated fertilisation of young lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) stands would increase relative habitat use by cattle; and (H2) that increased use of forested range by cattle would result in decreased use by mule deer. Methods Replicate study areas were located near Summerland, Kelowna, and Williams Lake in south-central British Columbia, Canada. Each study area had the following nine treatments: four pairs of stands thinned to densities of ~250 (very low), ~500 (low), ~1000 (medium), and ~2000 (high) stems ha–1 with one stand of each pair fertilised five times at 2-year intervals. Relative habitat use was measured by counting cowpies for cattle in summer and pellet groups for deer in summer and winter periods 1998–2003. Key results Relative habitat use by cattle was significantly enhanced by fertiliser treatments and heavy thinning, supporting H1. Relative habitat use by deer during summer periods was not affected by stand density, but was significantly higher in fertilised than unfertilised stands, with no difference in winter months, thereby not supporting H2. Conclusions Summer habitat use by mule deer appeared to be a function of forage opportunities and no significant correlations in relative habitat use between cattle and mule deer during the summer were detected. Negative correlations were better explained by the need for tree cover by deer during severe winter conditions than a negative response to cattle grazing. Implications Domestic grazing by cattle may be compatible with native ungulates such as mule deer, at least in those forest sites that are managed intensively for timber production. Fertilisation may result in sufficient forage production in the understorey vegetation of these forest ecosystems, to compensate for cattle grazing that reduces the live forage biomass.

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)0.001
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife ResearchSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207