The onset in spring and the end in autumn of the thermal and vegetative growing season affect calving time and reproductive success in reindeer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A developing trophic mismatch between the peak of energy demands by reproducing animals and the peak of forage availability has caused many species' reproductive success to decrease. The match-mismatch hypothesis (MMH) is an appealing concept that can be used to assess such fitness consequences. However, concerns have been raised on applying the MMH on capital breeders such as reindeer because the reliance on maternal capita rather than dietary income may mitigate negative effects of changing phenologies. Using a long-term dataset of reindeer calving dates recorded since 1970 in a semidomesticated reindeer population in Finnish Lapland and proxies of plant phenology; we tested the main hypothesis that the time lag between calving date and the plant phenology in autumn when females store nutrient reserves to finance reproduction would lead to consequences on reproductive success, as the time lag with spring conditions would. As predicted, the reproductive success of females of the Kutuharju reindeer population was affected by both the onset of spring green-up and vegetative senescence in autumn as calves were born heavier and with a higher first-summer survival when the onset of the vegetation growth was earlier and the end of the thermal growing season the previous year was earlier as well. Our results demonstrated that longer plant growing seasons might be detrimental to reindeer's reproductive success if a later end is accompanied by a reduced abundance of mushrooms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".