MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2307871109 · doi:10.14288/1.0090116

Short and long term recovery of plant communities following intensive grazing by caribou (Rangifer tarandus) and muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus) in the Low Arctic of Nunavut, Canada

2009· article· en· W2307871109 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Natalie Griller

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrazingArcticGeographyEcologyTerm (time)LichenBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Short and long term recovery of plant communities following intensive grazing by caribou (Rangifer tarandus) and muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus) were examined in the Low Arctic of Nunavut, Canada. Animals stranded on small islands resulted in intensively grazed the plant communities, creating natural grazing "experiments." Field work was conducted during July and August of 1997, at four locations. Islands intensively grazed by muskoxen (in 1980, 1984, 1996 and 1997) and by caribou (in 1987) were measured for plant cover and biomass, and current grazing intensity. Regression was used to detect correlations between plant cover and biomass. For most species, cover was a poor predictor of biomass. Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA) clearly separated sites by latitude. Direct gradient ordination (Redundancy Analysis) of each location showed the importance of soil moisture and slope position to vascular plant cover, and current grazing pressure and previous intensive grazing to biomass. Intensive grazing affected cover and biomass for at least one year. After thirteen years recovery of vascular plants was complete. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of all locations showed that cover of all species and functional groups (forbs, graminoids, lichens, shrubs) differed significantly between intensively grazed island and adjacent mainland sites. Cover of all species differed significantly by location and by site. There was no evidence of overcompensation, rather equal or undercompensatory growth occurred. Significant differences were found among intensively grazed islands, adjacent islands and mainland sites. There were significant differences between the islands and between the adjacent island and the mainland sites, but no significant differences between the intensively grazed island and the mainland. Mainland sites had levels of grazing similar to those of the recently, intensively grazed islands. Thus, it is necessary to compare islands, rather than island and mainland sites, to detect grazing effects. No significant differences were found between locations after thirteen years recovery from intensive grazing by muskoxen. Intensive grazing by caribou had longer-term effects than that by muskoxen. Caribou eat lichen whereas muskoxen trample and leave thalli in situ. Ten years after grazing by caribou, non-crustose lichen cover on the intensively grazed island was lower than the mainland, whereas 1 month, 13 and 17 years after grazing by muskoxen, cover was equal or greater than adjacent sites. The fertilization effect of decomposing muskoxen carcasses was evident 13 years after 27 muskoxen were killed at Merkeley Lake. Growth in some species was nutrient limited; cover and biomass of surrounding graminoids and Dryas integrifolia and cover of mosses were greatly increased. Salix spp. were not nutrient limited, and their growth was unaffected by nutrient addition. Without stranded grazers, small islands were protected from summer grazing by ungulates, and grazing levels were lower than on the mainland. With stranded caribou or muskox, however, grazing impacts were greatest on these islands, intermediate on mainland sites, and least on adjacent islands. Upland sites experienced greatest grazing pressure. The recently, intensively grazed sites had temporarily lower species richness. Discrete episodes of intensive grazing on small islands do not appear to cause permanent plant community change.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicIndigenous Studies and Ecology→French-language works237,207→