Is hunting an effective tool to control overabundant deer? A test using an experimental approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Overabundant populations of cervids have induced drastic negative effects on plant communities in several regions worldwide. Antlerless deer harvest by sport hunters has been proposed as a potential solution to overabundance because the philopatric behavior of female deer is expected to limit recolonization of hunted zones. The efficiency of this method, however, has rarely been tested in the wild. Using a large‐scale experimental design, we reduced white‐tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) density within 5 20‐km 2 areas on Anticosti Island (Québec, Canada). Our objective was to harvest 50% of antlerless deer in each site during the first year of the study in 2002, and 30% from 2003 to 2006. We monitored deer density, vegetation abundance and growth as well as deer life‐history traits during 6 years in these experimental sites and in 5 control sites where harvest rate was 5–7%. Overall, we achieved 93% of harvest objectives. Contrary to our expectations, however, deer density, vegetation abundance and growth, and deer life‐history traits did not vary differently in experimental and control sites during the study period. They rather varied stochastically but synchronously. We discuss several alternative hypotheses that may explain these results, including 1) compensatory mechanisms, 2) biases in density estimates, 3) limited access to territory for hunters, 4) large target areas for localized management, 5) low hunter density, 6) recolonization by surrounding deer, 7) slow plant response under canopy cover, and 8) bottom‐up mechanisms. Given the large efforts invested in this study, we conclude that the local control of abundant cervid populations through sport hunting may be difficult to achieve in many natural environments. © 2012 The Wildlife Society.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".