Factors influencing elk recruitment across ecotypes in the Western United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Ungulates are key components in ecosystems and economically important for sport and subsistence harvest. Yet the relative importance of the effects of weather conditions, forage productivity, and carnivores on ungulates are not well understood. We examined changes in elk ( Cervus canadensis ) recruitment (indexed as age ratios) across 7 states and 3 ecotypes in the northwestern United States during 1989–2010, while considering the effects of predator richness, forage productivity, and precipitation. We found a broad‐scale, long‐term decrease in elk recruitment of 0.48 juveniles/100 adult females/year. Weather conditions (indexed as summer and winter precipitation) showed small, but measurable, influences on recruitment. Forage productivity on summer and winter ranges (indexed by normalized difference vegetation index [NDVI] metrics) had the strongest effect on elk recruitment relative to other factors. Relationships between forage productivity and recruitment varied seasonally and regionally. The productivity of winter habitat was more important in southern parts of the study area, whereas annual variation in productivity of summer habitat had more influence on recruitment in northern areas. Elk recruitment varied by up to 15 juveniles/100 adult females across the range of variation in forage productivity. Areas with more species of large carnivores had relatively low elk recruitment, presumably because of increased predation. Wolves ( Canis lupus ) were associated with a decrease of 5 juveniles/100 adult females, whereas grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos ) were associated with an additional decrease of 7 juveniles/100 adult females. Carnivore species can have a critical influence on ungulate recruitment because their influence rivals large ranges of variation in environmental conditions. A more pressing concern, however, stems from persistent broad‐scale decreases in recruitment across the distribution of elk in the northwestern United States, irrespective of carnivore richness. Our results suggest that wildlife managers interested in improving recruitment of elk consider the combined effects of habitat and predators. Efforts to manage summer and winter ranges to increase forage productivity may have a positive effect on recruitment. © 2018 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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".