Wildfire effects on home range size and fidelity of boreal caribou in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wildfire can rapidly alter the forage availability for boreal ungulates such as woodland caribou ( Rangifer tarandus caribou Gmelin, 1788). Since fire decreases available lichens, a crucial food source for caribou, it may be an important determinant of caribou range use and demography. Here we examined whether wildfire affected range use, habitat selection, and basic demographic variables of boreal caribou in three regions in northern Alberta, Canada. Contrary to expectations, caribou showed no change in home range sizes nor did they shift their home ranges in the years following fires, despite having up to 76% of individual home ranges burned. Within home ranges, caribou preferred stands >50 years old and avoided stands <50 years old, but the extent of home range burned did not affect habitat selection in the year after fire. Although fire does not seem to directly affect the spatial distribution of Alberta caribou, the generation of younger seral stages may affect how caribou distribute within their annual ranges. However, this did not appear to affect population demographics, as fire did not affect annual mortality or fecundity. Boreal caribou in Alberta may be resilient to the effects of fire owing to large home ranges.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".