Responses of caribou and reindeer (<i>Rangifer tarandus</i>) to acute food shortages in spring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Migratory caribou and sedentary reindeer (Rangifer tarandus (L., 1758)) can encounter acute food shortages during spring. We examined the response to short-term food restrictions by measuring individual food intake, body mass, and activity of 2-year-old unbred female caribou and reindeer from 25 April to 29 May 2011. Caribou lost 2%–3% of body mass on days when mean dry matter (DM) intakes (60 ± 6 g DM·kg−0.75·d−1) were restricted up to 75%. Caribou regained body mass as intake increased to 98 ± 8 g DM·kg−0.75·d−1 following restriction without a change in digestibility (82%–83%). In reindeer, digestibility increased (78%–83%) as intakes decreased (67–45 g DM·kg−0.75·d−1). Food restriction did not affect activity for either subspecies. We suggest that, at high digestive efficiency, Rangifer have “spare capacity”, to increase DM intake to compensate for lost foraging opportunity or to use patches of emerging high-quality forage. Furthermore, caribou with large fat reserves lost proportionally more body mass, consumed less food, and were less active than leaner caribou. Our data indicate that Rangifer use flexible responses of food intake, digestion, and body condition to maximize survival and reproduction in both migratory and sedentary ecotypes at the end of winter.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".