Harvest and group effects on pup survival in a cooperative breeder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recruitment in cooperative breeders can be negatively affected by changes in group size and composition. The majority of cooperative breeding studies have not evaluated human harvest; therefore, the effects of recurring annual harvest and group characteristics on survival of young are poorly understood. We evaluated how harvest and groups affect pup survival using genetic sampling and pedigrees for grey wolves in North America. We hypothesized that harvest reduces pup survival because of (i) reduced group size, (ii) increased breeder turnover and/or (iii) reduced number of female helpers. Alternatively, harvest may increase pup survival possibly due to increased per capita food availability or it could be compensatory with other forms of mortality. Harvest appeared to be additive because it reduced both pup survival and group size. In addition to harvest, turnover of breeding males and the presence of older, non-breeding males also reduced pup survival. Large groups and breeder stability increased pup survival when there was harvest, however. Inferences about the effect of harvest on recruitment require knowledge of harvest rate of young as well as the indirect effects associated with changes in group size and composition, as we show. The number of young harvested is a poor measure of the effect of harvest on recruitment in cooperative breeders.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".