The temporal niche and seasonal differences in predation risk to translocated and resident woodland caribou (<i>Rangifer</i> <i>tarandus</i> <i>caribou</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mountain caribou are an endangered ecotype of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou (Gmelin, 1788)) that continue to decline, ultimately, due to habitat loss and, proximately, due to predation. A particularly imperilled population of mountain caribou was experimentally augmented with 19 northern caribou, a geographically distinct ecotype, from northern British Columbia. We examined seasonal variation in risk of predation by cougars (Puma concolor (L., 1771)) to the translocated caribou with comparison to resident caribou. Our basic approach followed the Movement Ecology Paradigm, in particular the interplay among why move, and when and where to move. We applied a cluster analysis framework on space-use patterns of GPS radio-collared animals to determine biologically relevant seasons. Then we examined the spatiotemporal similarity in habitat use between caribou groups and cougars across these seasons. This analysis included a control group of caribou from the donor herd that were not translocated. Five resident caribou seasons, two donor caribou seasons, and two cougar seasons were identified. Resident caribou remained at high elevations year-round and primarily selected habitats not used by cougars. In contrast, translocated caribou tended to occupy low-elevation habitats extensively used by cougars, resulting in predation of eight translocated caribou, six of which were by cougars. We concluded that the translocated caribou did not adopt the predator avoidance strategies of resident caribou, rendering them more vulnerable to predation. We make recommendations for future herd augmentations, notably that donor caribou should be of the same ecotype, have similar seasonal patterns of habitat use and associated behavioural repertoires, and be exposed to the same complex of predators.
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".