MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2307180275 · doi:10.1093/jmammal/gyv184

Decades of habitat use reveal food limitation of Newfoundland caribou

2015· article· en· W2307180275 on OpenAlexafffundabout
James A. Schaefer, Shane P. Mahoney, Jackie N. Weir, J. Glenn Luther, Colleen E. Soulliere

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mammalogy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersDepartment of Environment and Conservation, Government of Newfoundland and LabradorSafari Club International Foundation
KeywordsHabitatEcologyShrublandDeciduousBiologyForageWildlifeLichenPopulationGeographyLimitingDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Identifying limiting factors is fundamental to understanding and conserving mammals, yet it often requires long-term data for long-lived species. Numerical changes of migratory caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ), for example, may unfold over decades, but few studies have examined habitat use at similar timeframes. We analyzed multiple decades of habitat use by caribou in Newfoundland, Canada, coincident with their numeric growth ( r = 0.064 in 1980s, 1990s) and decline ( r = −0.099 in 2000s). We examined 2 scales: selection of land cover, based on radiotracking of 520 adult females, and diet, based on microhistological analysis of feces and age-specific tooth wear from jawbones of harvested animals. Caribou responded at both scales. In contrast to previous decades, females during the population decline used proportionally less open coniferous and closed coniferous forests, they used more shrublands (in fall and winter) and barrens, open habitats with greater vascular plant resources. Patterns of selection also changed from nonselection to avoidance of open coniferous forest and from avoidance to nonselection or preference of barrens. The proportion of dietary moss increased at the expense of deciduous shrubs, especially during spring and summer and of ericaceous shrubs, graminoids, and lichens during winter. Teeth of both sexes exhibited premature wear, likely indicative of abrasion from low-quality forages and cropping of foods near the ground. These patterns mirror other responses, including declines in calf weight, female body size, number of male antler points, herd affinities, and time spent on the summer grounds. We surmise that they reflect density-dependent forage limitation of this island population.

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)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.201 · 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.

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

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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