MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Natural Experiment on the Impact of Overabundant Deer on Forest Invertebrates

2005· article· en· W2137093032 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sylvain Allombert, STEVE STOCKTON, Jean‐Louis Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Biology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersMedical University of South Carolina
KeywordsAbundance (ecology)Vegetation (pathology)HabitatInvertebrateEcologyUnderstoryLitterOdocoileusPlant litterGeographyEnvironmental scienceForestryBiologyEcosystemCanopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: In large parts of North America and Europe, deer overabundance threatens forest plant diversity. Few researchers have examined its effects on invertebrate assemblages. In a natural experiment on Haida Gwaii (British Columbia, Canada), where Sitka black‐tailed deer ( Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis ) were introduced, we compared islands with no deer, with deer for fewer than 20 years, and with deer for more than 50 years. We sampled invertebrates in three habitat categories: forest edge vegetation below the browse line, forest interior vegetation below the browse line, and forest interior litter. In forest edge vegetation, invertebrate abundance and species density decreased with increasing length of browsing history. In forest interior vegetation, decrease was significant only on islands with more than 50 years of browsing. Insect abundance in the vegetation decreased eightfold and species density sixfold on islands browsed for more than 50 years compared with islands without deer. Primary consumers were most affected. Invertebrates from the litter showed little or no variation related to browsing history. We attributed the difference between vegetation‐dwelling and litter‐dwelling invertebrates to differences in the effect of browsing on their habitat. In the layer below the browse line deer progressively removed the habitat. The extent of litter habitat was not affected, but its quality changed. We recommend more attention be given to the effect of overabundant ungulates on forest invertebrate conservation with a focus on edge and understory vegetation in addition to litter habitat.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations169
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation BiologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207