Resource Selection of Free-ranging Horses Influenced by Fire in Northern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Free-ranging or feral horses (Equus ferus caballus) were important to the livelihood of First Nations and indigenous communities in Canada. The early inhabitants of the boreal region of British Columbia (BC) capitalized on naturally occurring wildfires and anthropogenic burning to provide forage for free-ranging horses and manage habitat for wildlife. This form of pyric herbivory, or grazing driven by fi re via the attraction to the palatable vegetation in recently burned areas, is an evolutionary disturbance process that occurs globally. However, its application to manage forage availability for free-ranging horses has not been studied in northern Canada. Across Canada, there are varying levels of governance for feral and free-ranging horses depending on the provincial jurisdiction and associated legislation. The BC Range Act (Act) allows range tenure holders to free-range horses that they own for commercial operations on Crown land. Big-game guide outfitters as range tenure holders are provided grazing licences or grazing permits under the Act with an approved range use plan. Guide outfitters and other range tenure holders have incorporated fire ecology as part of their rangeland management in mountainous portions of the boreal forest of northeastern BC to promote mosaics of vegetation height and species composition across the landscape to meet nutritional requirements of their free-ranging horses. Using resource selection function models, we evaluated the influence of pyric herbivory on boreal vegetation and use by horse herds occupying 4 distinct landscapes. We found that horses preferentially selected recently burned areas and areas that burned more frequently when they were available. We also found that horses avoided steep slopes and forest cover types. Fire and the ecological processes associated with it, including pyric herbivory, are important considerations when managing boreal rangelands in northeastern BC. Because historical fire regimes of the boreal region of Canada differ from the arid regions of the United States inhabited by feral horses, the role of pyric herbivory in altering horse distributions in the United States is limited.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".