Cumulative effects of climate and landscape change drive spatial distribution of Rocky Mountain wolverine (<i>Gulo gulo</i>L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Contemporary landscapes are subject to a multitude of human‐derived stressors. Effects of such stressors are increasingly realized by population declines and large‐scale extirpation of taxa worldwide. Most notably, cumulative effects of climate and landscape change can limit species’ local adaptation and dispersal capabilities, thereby reducing realized niche space and range extent. Resolving the cumulative effects of multiple stressors on species persistence is a pressing challenge in ecology, especially for declining species. For example, wolverines (Gulo guloL.) persist on only 40% of their historic North American range. While climate change has been shown to be a mechanism of range retractions, anthropogenic landscape disturbance has been recently implicated. We hypothesized these two interact to effect declines. We surveyed wolverine occurrence using camera trapping and genetic tagging at 104 sites at the wolverine range edge, spanning a 15,000 km2gradient of climate, topographic, anthropogenic, and biotic variables. We used occupancy and generalized linear models to disentangle the factors explaining wolverine distribution. Persistent spring snow pack—expected to decrease with climate change—was a significant predictor, but so was anthropogenic landscape change. Canid mesocarnivores, which we hypothesize are competitors supported by anthropogenic landscape change, had comparatively weaker effect. Wolverine population declines and range shifts likely result from climate change and landscape change operating in tandem. We contend that similar results are likely for many species and that research that simultaneously examines climate change, landscape change, and the biotic landscape is warranted. Ecology research and species conservation plans that address these interactions are more likely to meet their objectives.
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 | 0.001 | 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".