Assessing release protocols for Canada lynx reintroduction in colorado
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reintroductions are a common strategy to restore ecosystem integrity, especially when top predators are involved. Reintroductions are often time consuming, expensive, and controversial, and thus understanding what aspects are important for a successful program is needed. Focusing on the example of the reintroduction of Canada lynx ( Lynx canadensis ) to Colorado, we investigated how different release protocols (RP) affected mortality within the first year post‐release. We found that average monthly mortality in the study area during the first year decreased with time in captivity from 0.205 (95% CI = 0.069, 0.475) for lynx having spent up to 7 days in captivity to 0.028 (95% CI = 0.012, 0.064) for lynx spending >45 days in captivity before release. Our results also suggest that keeping lynx in captivity beyond 5–6 weeks accrued little benefit in terms of monthly survival. We found that, on a monthly average basis, lynx were as likely to move out ( P = 0.196, SE = 0.032) as well as back onto ( P = 0.143, SE = 0.034) the reintroduction area during the first year after release. Mortality was 1.6 times greater outside of the study area, suggesting that permanent emigration and differential mortality rates on and off reintroduction areas should be factored into sample size calculations for an effective reintroduction effort. A post‐release monitoring plan is critical to providing information to assess aspects of RP and to improve survival of individuals. Future lynx and other carnivore reintroductions may use our results to help design reintroduction programs including both the release and post‐release monitoring protocols. © 2011 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".