Short‐term effect of helicopter‐based capture on movements of a social ungulate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Capture and handling of wildlife is often an important component of studies where detailed demographic, behavioral, physiological, or health data are required. Yet, capturing and handling wildlife is sometimes controversial and lacking public support because of concern about effects on individuals. Investigating potential effects of capturing wildlife is also important to inform data‐censoring protocols when using information obtained from captured animals. We investigated the short‐term effect of helicopter‐based capture and handling on movements of free‐ranging bison ( Bison bison ) that were chemically immobilized in Yukon, Canada. We examined daily movement rates, home range size, and displacement of global positioning system‐collared individuals immediately after capture and for 20 days thereafter. Our results indicate that there is a minimal short‐term effect of helicopter‐based capture on bison movements. Significant differences from apparent pre‐capture movement behavior were observed only within 24 hours after capture. We observed variation among individuals, however, with some animals taking up to 10 days to return to apparent pre‐capture movement rates, whereas others had no measurable response to capture. Despite individual variation, >80% of individuals had returned to apparent pre‐capture movement behavior within the first 5 days after capture. Furthermore, sex‐based effects were evident: females increased their daily movement rates, home range size, and displacement after capture, whereas males had either no effect or decreased movement rates. Our results suggest that movement rates are altered for only a short period after capture and, therefore, should not have severe negative effects on bison using our protocols. Accordingly, researchers should censor the first 10 days after capture from their analyses to avoid using biased information. Our study should also help inform public discourse regarding capturing and handling wildlife for research or management purposes. © 2019 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".