MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140094899 · doi:10.2193/2009-252

Scavenging Makes Cougars Susceptible to Snaring at Wolf Bait Stations

2010· article· en· W2140094899 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kyle H. Knopff, Aliah Adams Knopff, Mark S. Boyce

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaRocky Mountain Elk FoundationFoundation for North American Wild SheepAlberta Conservation Association
KeywordsCarrionCanisForagingGeographyScavengingEcologyAnimal ecologyPhilopatryBiologyMortality rateDemographyZoologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: In western Canada it is illegal to trap or snare cougars ( Puma concolor ), but cougars are sometimes caught accidentally in snares placed near carrion baits, a technique commonly used by trappers to harvest wolves ( Canis lupus ). We studied cougar foraging ecology and survival in west‐central Alberta to estimate the propensity for cougars to scavenge, their susceptibility to snaring at trapper bait stations, and the implications these have for managing cougar populations. During 2005–2008, we used data from visits to 3,407 Global Positioning System (GPS) location clusters and >400 km of snow tracking of 44 cougars to locate foraging events and calculate scavenging rates. We identified 83 instances of scavenging, and 64% of monitored cougars scavenged at least once. Scavenging rates were higher in winter (0.12 events/week) than in summer (0.04 events/week), reflecting seasonal variation in carrion availability. Individual cougars scavenged at different rates, and winter feeding on carrion occupied up to 50% of total carcass handling time for some cougars. Based on these results we conclude that cougars are facultative scavengers. A propensity to scavenge made cougars susceptible to snaring causing high annual mortality in radiocollared cougars (0.11, 95% CI = 0.03–0.21). Provincial cougar mortality data demonstrate that snaring has increased dramatically as a mortality source in Alberta over the last 2 decades. Mortalities of radiocollared cougars during our study were 100% human caused and the addition of snaring mortality to already high hunting mortality resulted in low annual survival (0.67, 95% CI = 0.53–0.81). Our study is one of the first to identify population‐level consequences for nontarget animals killed unintentionally by indiscriminate harvest techniques in a terrestrial ecosystem. Maintaining sustainable cougar harvest where snaring at carrion baits is permitted may require flexible hunting quotas capable of accommodating high cougar snaring mortalities in some years.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations32
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207