Habitat selection and demography of a nonmigratory woodland caribou population in Newfoundland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies have shown that habitat selection and population limitation of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) is typically associated with the interaction among human-induced habitat alteration, wolf predation (Canis lupus), and the availability of alternative prey such as moose (Alces alces) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Although woodland caribou inhabiting Newfoundland have been exposed to moderate levels of timber harvesting, black bears (Ursus americanus), not wolves, are the principal large predator in this system, and moose represent the alternative large prey species. During a 4-year period of timber harvesting, we monitored the location and status of 24 adults and 46 calves to determine coarse-scale habitat selection and survival rates of a nonmigratory and demographically isolated woodland caribou herd in Newfoundland. We also estimated pregnancy and recruitment rates and determined potential causes of mortality. Habitat selection significantly varied among seasons but was consistent with the hypothesis that caribou avoid habitats where the likelihood of contact with a predator or alternative prey was high. Population growth rate (rs= 0.01 ± 0.06 (mean ± 1SD)), calf recruitment (percentage of 10-month old calves = 13%), and adult survival rate (0.87) indicated that the population was stable. Mean pregnancy rate (96%), parturition date, and the lack of evidence for malnutrition in 22 carcasses suggested that the availability of quality forage is not a key factor limiting population growth. Although predation could not be linked to the death of adult caribou, black bears were responsible for 5 of 15 calf fatalities. This study suggests that black bears need to be considered more seriously as a factor influencing coarse-scale habitat selection and demography in woodland caribou herds.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".