MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787869868 · doi:10.1002/ece3.3809

Range contraction and increasing isolation of a polar bear subpopulation in an era of sea‐ice loss

2018· article· en· W2787869868 on OpenAlexafffund
Kristin L. Laidre, Erik W. Born, Stephen N. Atkinson, Øystein Wiig, Liselotte Wesley Andersen, Nicholas J. Lunn, Markus Dyck, Eric V. Regehr, Richard McGovern, Patrick J. Heagerty

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology and Evolution · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Environment and Protected AreasEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaGovernment of Nunavut
FundersMiljø- og FødevareministerietUniversitetet i OsloEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaMinistry of EnvironmentWorld Wildlife FundParks CanadaPinngortitaleriffikNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPolarOceanographySea iceRange (aeronautics)Contraction (grammar)AstrobiologyClimatologyGeographyBiologyGeologyPhysicsAstronomyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Climate change is expected to result in range shifts and habitat fragmentation for many species. In the Arctic, loss of sea ice will reduce barriers to dispersal or eliminate movement corridors, resulting in increased connectivity or geographic isolation with sweeping implications for conservation. We used satellite telemetry, data from individually marked animals (research and harvest), and microsatellite genetic data to examine changes in geographic range, emigration, and interpopulation connectivity of the Baffin Bay (BB) polar bear (Ursus maritimus) subpopulation over a 25‐year period of sea‐ice loss. Satellite telemetry collected from n = 43 (1991–1995) and 38 (2009–2015) adult females revealed a significant contraction in subpopulation range size (95% bivariate normal kernel range) in most months and seasons, with the most marked reduction being a 70% decline in summer from 716,000 km2 (SE 58,000) to 211,000 km2 (SE 23,000) (p < .001). Between the 1990s and 2000s, there was a significant shift northward during the on‐ice seasons (2.6° shift in winter median latitude, 1.1° shift in spring median latitude) and a significant range contraction in the ice‐free summers. Bears in the 2000s were less likely to leave BB, with significant reductions in the numbers of bears moving into Davis Strait (DS) in winter and Lancaster Sound (LS) in summer. Harvest recoveries suggested both short and long‐term fidelity to BB remained high over both periods (83–99% of marked bears remained in BB). Genetic analyses using eight polymorphic microsatellites confirmed a previously documented differentiation between BB, DS, and LS; yet weakly differentiated BB from Kane Basin (KB) for the first time. Our results provide the first multiple lines of evidence for an increasingly geographically and functionally isolated subpopulation of polar bears in the context of long‐term sea‐ice loss. This may be indicative of future patterns for other polar bear subpopulations under climate change.

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
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations58
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology and EvolutionSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207