The demographic response of bank-dwelling beavers to flow regulation: a comparison on the Green and Yampa rivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed the effects of flow regulation on the demography of beavers (Castor canadensis) by comparing the density, home-range size, and body size of bank-dwelling beavers on two sixth-order alluvial river systems, the flow-regulated Green River and the free-flowing Yampa River, from 1997 to 2000. Flow regulation on the Green River has altered fluvial geomorphic processes, influencing the availability of willow and cottonwood, which, in turn, has influenced the demography of beavers. Beaver density was higher on the Green River (0.50.6 colonies per kilometre of river) than on the Yampa River (0.35 colonies per kilometre of river). Adult and subadult beavers on the Green River were in better condition, as indicated by larger body mass and tail size. There was no detectable difference in home-range size, though there were areas on the Yampa River that no beavers used. We attribute the improved habitat quality on the Green River to a greater availability of willow. We suggest that the sandy flats and sandbars that form during base flows and the ice cover that forms over winter on the Yampa River increase the energy expended by the beavers to obtain food and increase predation risk and thus lowers the availability of woody forage.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".