MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modeling density dependence and climatic disturbances in caribou: a case study from the Bathurst Island complex, Canadian High Arctic

2006· article· en· W2061129003 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joerg Tews, Michael A. D. Ferguson, Lenore Fahrig

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Zoology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsGovernment of NunavutCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDensity dependenceDisturbance (geology)ArcticPopulationPopulation densitySnowVital ratesEcologyEnvironmental scienceBiologyPhysical geographyPopulation growthGeographyDemographyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Peary caribou Rangifer tarandus pearyi is the northernmost subspecies of Rangifer in North America and endemic to the Canadian High Arctic. Because of severe population declines following years of unfavorable winter weather with ice coating on the ground or thicker snow cover, it is believed that density‐independent disturbance events are the primary driver for Peary caribou population dynamics. However, it is unclear to what extent density dependence may affect population dynamics of this species. Here, we test for different levels of density dependence in a stochastic, single‐stage population model, based on available empirical information for the Bathurst Island complex (BIC) population in the Canadian High Arctic. We compare predicted densities with observed densities during 1961–2001 under various assumptions of the strength of density dependence. On the basis of our model, we found that scenarios with no or very low density dependence led to population densities far above observed densities. For average observed disturbance regimes, a carrying capacity of 0.1 caribou km −2 generated an average caribou density similar to that estimated for the BIC population over the past four decades. With our model we also tested the potential effects of climate change‐related increases in the probability and severity of disturbance years, that is unusually poor winter conditions. On the basis of our simulation results, we found that, in particular, potential increases in disturbance severity (as opposed to disturbance frequency) may pose a considerable threat to the persistence of this species.

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 score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ZoologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207