MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956170408 · doi:10.1071/wr18079

The use of contraceptive techniques in managed wild African lion (Panthera leo) populations to mimic open system cub recruitment

2019· article· en· W2956170408 on OpenAlexaff
Orla K. McEvoy, Susan M. Miller, Warren Beets, Tarik Bodasing, Natalia Borrego, André Burger, Brian Courtenay, Sam M. Ferreira, Cathariné C. Hanekom, Markus Hofmeyr, Craig Packer, Dave Robertson, Ken Stratford, Rob Slotow, Daniel M. Parker

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsCascades (Canada)University College of the North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPantheraPopulation controlPopulationFecundityHysterectomyContext (archaeology)MedicineLitterWildlifeDemographyBiologySurgeryEcologyEnvironmental healthFamily planning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context Managed wild lions (Panthera leo) are lions found in smaller (<1000 km2), fenced protected areas that hold a substantial portion of South Africa’s wild lion population. Because the natural population control mechanisms are compromised within these properties, managers must actively control population growth rates. Fecundity control is used by wildlife managers, but long-term, empirical data on the impact and consequences of such interventions in lions are lacking. Aims The aim of the present study was to assess the effectiveness of two methods of contraception (deslorelin implant and unilateral hysterectomy) in reducing cub recruitment of managed wild lions. Methods Survey data spanning 14 years from 94 managed wild lions on 19 protected areas were used to evaluate the effectiveness of deslorelin implant treatments and unilateral hysterectomies on population growth rates through mimicking open system cub recruitment. Key results Deslorelin implants were effective at increasing the age of first reproduction and lengthening inter-birth intervals. There was also an unexpected decrease in litter size. Behavioural side-effects were recorded in 40% of individuals: 19% pride fragmentation; 13% lack of receptiveness towards males; 8% other. The more successive deslorelin implants a lioness had, the more likely it was that weight gain was reported. Unilateral hysterectomy resulted in a decrease in litter size post-surgery, but this was not statistically significant. No behavioural or physiological side-effects were noted after unilateral hysterectomy. Conclusions Deslorelin treatment was more effective in reducing the reproductive output of managed wild lionesses than unilateral hysterectomy surgery. While more side-effects were associated with deslorelin implants than unilateral hysterectomies, a single deslorelin treatment is currently a good option for fecundity reduction. More research is required on unilateral hysterectomy surgery. Implications Neither deslorelin implants nor unilateral hysterectomies offer a ‘silver bullet’ solution for reducing rapid population growth in managed wild lions. Reproductive control should be integrated with other best-practice approaches.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.258
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.134 · 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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife ResearchSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207