Wolves, elk, and aspen in the winter range of Jasper National Park, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We undertook a retrospective study of aspen age structure in the winter range of Jasper National Park to assess potential trophic cascades in wolf–elk–aspen systems. We compiled historical wolf ( Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1758) and elk ( Cervus elaphus Linnaeus, 1758) population data and, in 2005, sampled 42 trembling aspen ( Populus tremuloides Michx.) stands within the Palisades site along the Athabasca Valley near Jasper townsite and another 30 stands within the Willow Creek site in a relatively remote portion of the park. Results indicated that aspen recruitment (suckers or seedlings growing into tall saplings and trees) occurred at both sites in the early 1900s but decreased in the 1940s as elk numbers were reaching a maximum. Wolves were largely eliminated from the park in the mid-1900s, and aspen recruitment during that time ceased at both sites, apparently because of heavy browsing by elk. With recovery of wolf populations in the late 1960s and increasing predation risk, elk use of the Willow Creek site declined, and aspen recruitment resumed. However, at the Palisades site, an area of relatively low predation risk due to human use and developments, renewed aspen recruitment has not occurred. Results indicate that historical wolf or ungulate control programs and human developments influenced trophic cascades involving wolves, elk, and aspen in these winter 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".