MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765227995 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.21380

Moose response to high‐elevation forestry: Implications for apparent competition with endangered caribou

2017· article· en· W2765227995 on OpenAlexafffund
Meghan Anderson, Bruce N. McLellan, Robert Serrouya

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsAlberta Biodiversity Monitoring InstituteMinistry of ForestsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsWoodland caribouSeral communityEcologyUnderstoryVegetation (pathology)HabitatGeographyPopulationSequoiaPredationAbies lasiocarpaTaigaBiologyCanopyMontane ecologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Habitat disturbance threatens woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) by altering inter‐tropic relationships, which causes predation rates to increase. Of particular concern is the increase in early seral vegetation in high‐elevation caribou summer habitat created by the recent expansion of logging into these forests. Deep snow confines the relatively abundant moose (Alces alces) population to valleys during winter, but in summer they can move up slope, where their spatial overlap with caribou increases. Wolves (Canis lupus) follow moose, their primary prey, up slope and occasionally encounter and kill caribou. We tested the hypothesis that early seral vegetation in high‐elevation cutblocks (i.e., logged areas) attracts moose into mountain caribou summer habitat, and thereby increases the spatial overlap between caribou, moose, and wolves. To test our hypothesis, we examined how moose selection for early seral vegetation changed with elevation, how moose used undisturbed habitat, and how the proportion of early seral vegetation at high elevations in a moose home range was related to the amount of time moose spent at high elevations. Moose selection for cutblocks increased with elevation; however, when moose were at high elevations they spent the majority of their time in old‐growth forest where they were likely browsing on understory shrubs, and the area of high‐elevation cutblocks in moose home ranges did not affect the amount of time moose spent at high elevations. When we further explored the relationship between the amount of early seral vegetation at high elevations and the amount of time moose spent at high elevations, we found moose spent more time at high elevations when total early seral vegetation (from natural sources and cutblocks) increased, but there was little evidence that either type, on their own, influenced moose to use higher elevations. We conclude that although moose select cutblocks, the influence of high‐elevation cutblocks on moose was minor in our study. Our results and those of other studies suggests low‐elevation logging in moose winter ranges has led to an increased number of moose, and likely has a greater effect on moose distribution than logging at higher elevations. These insights can help guide management of apparent competition between moose and caribou. © 2017 The Wildlife Society.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207