Assessment of crucial moose winter habitat in western Wyoming.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past 2 decades wildlife managers in Wyoming have documented that moose (Alces alces shirasi) populations within the 8 herd units in western Wyoming are declining; habitat condition is believed most responsible for decline in at least 1 herd unit. As the first component of a larger effort to systematically assess moose winter range throughout Wyoming, we assessed the winter habitat of the Jackson and Sublette moose herds in 2007-2009. Habitat was assessed with a landscape approach using 1) habitat mapping, 2) photo-documentation of willow and aspen communities, 3) risk/ succession assessment of aspen stands, and 4) detailed vegetation monitoring using Live Dead Index transects. In the Jackson Moose Herd Unit a total of 105,574 acres (~42,740 ha) were evaluated and delineated into 403 habitat patches with specific vegetative data collected on 52 transects. In the Sublette Moose Herd Unit a total of 48,617 acres (~19,685 ha) were assessed and delineated into 301 habitat patches with detailed vegetation data collected on 54 transects. Treatment prioritizations were made based on vegetative data that indicated that willow (Salix spp.) and aspen (Populus spp.) habitats were over used and/or in decline in both study areas. The majority of willow regeneration was not escaping the browse zone of moose. Succession in many aspen patches had advanced to include conifers, but regenerating aspen was not growing beyond the browse zone. These habitat inventories and assessments will be used as a template for enhancing moose winter habitat in Wyoming. Management implications and cooperative strategies between wildlife and habitat managers are discussed. ALCES VOL. 47: 151-162 (2011)
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".