Seasonal foraging strategies of Alaskan gray wolves (<i>Canis</i> <i>lupus</i>) in an ecosystem subsidized by Pacific salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus</i> spp.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite frequent observations of gray wolves (Canis lupus L., 1758) using nonungulate prey, the seasonal and interannual variation in the use and relative importance of alternative prey sources to gray wolf diets have not been studied at the individual scale. We used stable isotope analysis (δ 13 C and δ 15 N) of guard hair and blood components (clot and serum) collected over 4 years to examine the occurrence, extent, and temporal variation of Pacific salmon (genus Oncorhynchus Suckley, 1861) as a food resource by both individual wolves and social groups in Lake Clark National Park and Preserve in southwestern Alaska, USA. Our results demonstrate substantial variability in the use of salmon over time. During summer, diets of five wolves consisted of at least 50% salmon, while the diets of 17 wolves consisted of primarily terrestrial prey. Over 3 years, one group of wolves consistently consumed salmon in summer and switched to terrestrial prey in winter. Prey choices were generally similar within social groups; however, the degree to which individuals consumed salmon was highly variable. The use of salmon as exhibited by wolves in Lake Clark is likely widespread where salmon are abundant and this finding should be taken into consideration in the conservation and management of wolves and their prey.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".