Population dynamics of northern white-tailed deer during mild winters: evidence of regulation by food competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus borealis) at the northeastern limit of their range after their density had decreased as a result of harsh winters aggravated by coyote predation. We compared two populations wintering in adjacent areas. In the Lac Témiscouata wintering area (LTWA), deer and browse density averaged 10 animals/km2and 127 000 deciduous twigs/ha compared with 20 deer/km2and 68 000 twigs/ha, respectively, at the Pohénégamook wintering area (PWA). For 75 radio-collared deer, the probability of death was highest during the short spring migration and remained elevated in winter, whereas fewer deaths occurred in summer and none during autumn migration. PWA deer had a higher mortality rate than did LTWA animals and died mostly in winter, from predation, starvation, and collision equally. Based on observed survival rates, we estimated that the finite rate of increase averaged [Formula: see text]1.25 and [Formula: see text]1.00 for LTWA and PWA populations, respectively. At PWA, we examined 129 carcasses to determine the mortality pattern of deer. Among adults, we did not detect significant differences related to sex. Starvation and predation affected more fawns and old deer than prime animals, whereas collision appeared to be nonselective. Most cases of starvation occurred after the beginning of March, when body reserves dropped to low levels. We conclude that competition for winter forage regulated PWA deer during the study.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".