MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Survival of Adult Female Elk in Yellowstone Following Wolf Restoration

2006· article· en· W2113315506 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shaney B. Evans, L. David Mech, P. J. White, Glen A. Sargeant

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCanisPredationUrsusCervus elaphusNational parkHunting seasonPumaMark and recapturePopulationBiologyGray wolfEcologyGeographyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Counts of northern Yellowstone elk (Cervus elaphus) in northwestern Wyoming and adjacent Montana, USA, have decreased at an average rate of 6–8% per year since wolves (Canis lupus) were reintroduced in 1995. Population growth rates of elk are typically sensitive to variations in adult female survival; populations that are stable or increasing exhibit high adult female survival. We used survival records for 85 radiocollared adult female elk 1–19 years old to estimate annual survival from March 2000 to February 2004. Weighted average annual survival rates were approximately 0.83 (95% CI = 0.77–0.89) for females 1–15 years old and 0.80 (95% CI = 0.73–0.86) for all females. Our estimates were much lower than the rate of 0.99 observed during 1969–1975 when fewer elk were harvested by hunters, wolves were not present, and other predators were less numerous. Of 33 documented deaths included in our analysis, we attributed 11 to hunter harvest, 14 to predation (10 wolf, 2 unknown, 1 cougar [Puma concolor], and 1 bear [Ursus sp.]), 6 to unknown causes, and 2 to winter-kill. Most deaths occurred from December through March. Estimates of cause-specific annual mortality rates were 0.09 (0.05–0.14) for all predators, 0.08 (0.04–0.13) for hunting, and 0.07 (0.03–0.11) for wolves specifically. Wolf-killed elk were typically older (median = 12 yr) than hunter-killed elk (median = 9 yr, P = 0.03). However, elk that winter outside the park where they were exposed to hunting were also younger (median = 7 yr) than elk that we did not observe outside the park (median = 9 yr, P < 0.01). Consequently, differences in ages of elk killed by wolves and hunters may reflect characteristics of elk exposed to various causes of mortality, as well as differences in susceptibility. Unless survival rates of adult females increase, elk numbers are likely to continue declining. Hunter harvest is the only cause of mortality that is amenable to management at the present time.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations51
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife Management→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→