MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Deer populations up, hunter populations down: Implications of interdependence of deer and hunter population dynamics on management

2003· article· en· W2248106248 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBrown UniversityNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation
KeywordsOdocoileusWildlifeWildlife managementRecreationGeographyAbundance (ecology)PopulationEcologyEcosystemFencingAgroforestryBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractWhite-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are managed to yield diverse impacts, including effects to ecosystems. Many conventional hunting systems manage deer abundance through rules that strive to produce recreation opportunities and an equitable distribution of antlered bucks among hunters. To protect against excessive harvests, antlerless deer harvests often are regulated through quotas. This approach is effective when deer productivity does not outstrip capacity of the hunter population to harvest required numbers of antlerless deer. In many areas of North America, abundance of white-tailed deer has increased dramatically in the past two decades, which has caused many wildlife managers to ask whether deer populations can be controlled with conventional harvest strategies. We used population reconstruction modeling to simulate deer populations from mixed hardwood forests in southern New York, determined antlerless deer harvests needed to stabilize or reduce populations, and evaluated whether current hunting systems can effectively achieve potential ecosystem objectives. Current hunter willingness to seek or use antlerless deer permits likely is inadequate to stabilize or reduce deer densities. This situation may be exacerbated in the future with occurrence of diseases in deer or other factors that diminish hunter participation. We discuss implications for effectiveness of ecosystem management.RésuméLes populations de cerfs de Virginie (Odocoileus virginianus) sont gérées de façon à réduire les impacts négatifs associés à la prolifération de cet animal, notamment le broutement excessif dans certains écosystèmes. En général, l'abondance des cerfs est contrôlée par une chasse récréative qui assure une répartition équitable des mâles avec bois entre les chasseurs. Pour éviter des récoltes excessives, la chasse aux cerfs sans bois est souvent réglementée par des quotas. Cette approche fonctionne lorsque la productivité des cerfs ne dépasse pas un certain niveau et que les chasseurs sont en mesure de récolter le nombre désiré de cerfs sans bois. Toutefois, dans plusieurs régions de l'Amérique du Nord, l'abondance du cerf de Virginie s'est accrue de façon telle au cours des deux dernières décennies que plusieurs gestionnaires de la faune se demandent si les populations peuvent être contrôlées par les stratégies de récolte habituelles. À l'aide de la modélisation, nous avons déterminé quelle doit être la récolte de cerfs sans bois pour stabiliser ou réduire les populations de cerfs. Nous avons également évalué si les programmes actuels de chasse répondent aux objectifs de protection des écosystèmes. Le modèle s'applique aux populations de cerfs des forêts feuillues du sud de l'état de New York. Dans le système de chasse actuel, la bonne volonté des chasseurs pour prélever des cerfs sans bois n'est pas suffisante pour stabiliser ou réduire les densités de cerfs. Ce problème risque de s'aggraver avec l'apparition de maladies chez les cerfs ou d'autres facteurs pouvant diminuer la participation des chasseurs. Nous terminons cet article par une discussion sur l'efficacité de la gestion des écosystèmes.Key Words: harvesthunterNew YorkOdocoileus virginianuspopulationwhite-tailed deerwildlife managementMots-clés: cerf de Virginiechasseurgestion de la fauneNew YorkOdocoileus virginianuspopulationrécolte

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.241 · 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