MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076163026 · doi:10.1017/s0266467408004951

The utilization of large savanna trees by elephant in southern Kruger National Park

2008· article· en· W2076163026 on OpenAlexaff
Graeme Shannon, Dave J. Druce, Bruce R. Page, H.C. Eckhardt, Rina Grant, Rob Slotow

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Tropical Ecology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsKruger (Canada)
FundersSouth African National Parks
KeywordsNational parkForagingTransectWoodlandGeographyAbundance (ecology)EcologyDead treeGrasslandForestryBiologyAgroforestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Elephant are believed to be one of the main ecological drivers in the conversion of savanna woodlands to grassland. We assessed the impacts of elephant on large trees (≥5 m in height) in the southern section of the Kruger National Park. Tree dimensions and utilization by elephant were recorded for 3082 individual trees across 22 transects (average length of 3 km and 10 m wide). Sixty per cent of the trees exhibited elephant utilization and 4% were dead as a direct result of elephant foraging behaviour. Each height class of tree was utilized in proportion to abundance. However, the size of the tree and the species influenced the intensity of utilization and foraging approach. Sclerocarya birrea was actively selected for and experienced the highest proportional utilization (75% of all trees). Interestingly, the proportion of large trees that were utilized and pushed over increased with distance from permanent water, a result which has implications for the provision of water in the KNP. We conclude that mortality is likely to be driven by a combination of factors including fire, drought and disease, rather than the actions of elephant alone. Further investigation is also required regarding the role of senescence and episodic mortality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations114
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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