Range shift and winter foraging ecology of a population of Arctic tundra caribou
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some researchers have suggested that over periods of several decades, Arctic tundra caribou (Rangifer tarandus) may be regulated by density-dependent forage depletion. Winter range shifts could potentially delay such regulation when a population is at or near long-term maximum abundance. In the 1980s, Inuit correctly predicted the mass emigration of caribou from a traditional winter range on Foxe Peninsula (FP) on southern Baffin Island, Nunavut, Canada. Most FP caribou subsequently emigrated to a new winter range on Meta Incognita Peninsula (MIP). To determine if MIP provided emigrating caribou with better foraging habitats, we compared winter forage resources and snow cover at caribou foraging sites, and food selection by caribou on FP and MIP in April 1992. Caribou that remained on FP dug feeding craters in shallower, softer snow than those on MIP did. Biomass of most fruticose lichens was greater within foraging sites on MIP than on FP. Biomass of shrubs, other than Cassiope tetragona and Dryas integrifolia, was also greater on MIP than on FP. Dryas integrifolia was the only plant class that had higher biomass on FP than on MIP. Cladina spp. / Cladonia spp., Sphaerophorus fragilis, and Cetraria nivalis occurred less frequently in the rumens of FP caribou. Proportions of fruticose lichens in rumens of caribou on both peninsulas were similar to those on other overgrazed and High Arctic tundra winter ranges. Caribou on FP showed a higher preference for the shrub C. tetragona. Biomasses of plants sensitive to long-term feeding or trampling by caribou (i.e., the five most common fruticose lichens, other shrubs, and plant debris) were consistently lower on FP, which is congruous with Inuit reports that long-term cumulative overgrazing had reduced the supply of important forage plants on FP sites that were accessible to caribou in winter. FP caribou that emigrated to MIP gained access to more abundant, higher quality forage resources than those that remained on FP. Because most FP caribou had emigrated, this South Baffin subpopulation escaped, at least temporarily, the regulating effects of historical cumulative overgrazing.
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".