MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893814717

A Comparative Health Assessment of Urban and Non-Urban Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) in the Kootenay Region, British Columbia, Canada

2018· article· en· W2893814717 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amélie Mathieu

Bibliographic record

VenueOhioLink ETD Center (Ohio Library and Information Network) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOdocoileusGeographyArchaeologyPhysical geographyGeologyEcologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The provincial wildlife management agency, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, performed a translocation trial from 2015 to 2017 to control the urban mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus; uMD) overpopulation and supplement the declining non-urban mule deer (nuMD) population in the Kootenay region, British Columbia, Canada.Several local communities are now considering using uMD translocations as a long-term wildlife management method.The aim of this study was to characterize the health risks associated with the translocation initiative by comparing pathogen exposure, body condition scores (BCS) and pregnancy rates of urban and non-urban mule deer (nuMD) and to develop predictive disease models to inform management decisions related to urban deer translocations.Blood samples collected from 200 free-ranging mule deer captured in urban and non-urban environments in the Kootenay region from 2014 to 2017 were tested for exposure to selected pathogens and pregnancy status.Body condition scoring (BCS) and morphometric examinations were performed for each deer.BCS averaged 3.4 on a five-point scale, was greater in nuMD, and significantly differed between years.Antibodies were detected for adenovirus hemorrhagic disease virus (AHDV) (38.4% (uMD 43.7%, nuMD 33.3%)), bluetongue virus (BTV) (0.6% (uMD 1.2%, nuMD 0%)), bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV) (8.4% (uMD 4.6%, nuMD 12.1%)), bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) (1.1% (uMD 0%, nuMD 2.2%)), bovine parainfluenza-3 virus (PI3) (27.0%(uMD 27.6%, nuMD 26.4%)), Neospora caninum (22.1% (uMD 24.4%, nuMD 19.7%)) and Toxoplasma gondii (8.2% (uMD 12.3%, nuMD 3.9%)).No antibodies against epizootic hemorrhagic disease virus were detected.iii Pregnancy rates did not differ between the two deer populations (90.7% (uMD 90.6%, nuMD 90.9%)).Exposure to N. caninum was associated with a reduction in pregnancy rates.uMD were more likely to be exposed to T. gondii than nuMD.Comparison of body condition scores, pregnancy rates and pathogen exposure of uMD and nuMD showed that the health of the two populations did not significantly differ, suggesting that these particular pathogens do not factor in the decline of deer populations nor do they pose a risk of uMD translocations.However, predictive models indicated that exposure to AHDV, BRSV and T. gondii currently differs between deer populations and that uMD translocations would result in an increased risk of AHDV, BRSV and T. gondii transmission.The risk of BRSV and T. gondii transmission under a range of pathogen prevalence conditions was established to be of current concern and the risk of EHDV, BTV, BRSV, BVDV and T. gondii transmission was established to be of potential future concern for either populations.The number of uMD to translocate under the current conditions should be limited to 344 individuals as to minimize the risk of ADHV transmission and its potential negative effects on the nuMD population.Targeted continuous pathogen monitoring was shown to necessitate the sampling of a total of at least 133 individuals to detect realistic outbreaks in all pathogens of concern, including EHDV, BTV, BRSV, BVDV and T. gondii.These results should be considered as part of a formal risk assessment for future uMD translocations in southeastern British Columbia.knowledge, as well as my committee members, Dr.

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)0.001
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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOhioLink ETD Center (Ohio Library and Information Network)Same topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207